De los Santos, Lara Aurea L.

Rule 7, Section 5
FORUM SHOPPING

G.R. No. 174290 January 20, 2009

ST. MARY OF THE WOODS SCHOOL, INC. and MARCIAL P. SORIANO, petitioners, vs. OFFICE OF
THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF MAKATI CITY and HILARIO P. SORIANO,

x---------------------x

G.R. No. 176116 January 20, 2009

ST. MARY OF THE WOODS SCHOOL, INC. and MARCIAL P. SORIANO, petitioners, vs. OFFICE OF
THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF MAKATI CITY, NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, and
HILARIO P. SORIANO, Respondents.

Facts:

The spouses Soriano executed a Deed of Assignment in favour of Oro Development Corporation
(ODC) involving three parcels of land. ODC executed in favour of St. Mary of the Woods, Inc (SMWI).
a Deed of Sale over the same property.

Several years later, Hilario Soriano, one of the sons of the Spouses Soriano, discovered that the
signature in the Deed of Assignment in favour of ODC was a forgery. He filed a complaint for
Declaration of Nullity of Deed of Sale against SMWI and Cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title
with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Pending the civil case, a Notice of Lis Pendens were annotated
on the titles of the properties.

The RTC dismissed the complaint. Soriano filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The RTC denied the
motion.

Subsequently, SMWI filed a Motion for Cancellation of the Notice of Lis Pendens with the RTC. This
was granted.

Soriano thereafter, filed a Notice of Appeal to elevate to the Court of Appeals (CA) the order of the
RTC dismissing his complaint.

Pending the appeal, SMWI filed with the RTC a motion for Issuance of Supplement to Order the
Cancelling of the Notice of Lis Pendens on their title. Soriano filed a Motion for Reconsideration of
the RTC order granting the cancellation of the Notice of Lis Pendens. This was denied. The Register
of Deeds then cancelled the Notice of Lis Pendens on the titles of SMWI.

Soriano filed a Motion to Reinstate Notice of Lis Pendens with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA
granted the motion.

SMWI contends that the filing by Hilario Soriano with the CA of an appeal (where he already raised
the issue of re-annotating the Notice of Lis Pendens) and subsequently a separate Motion to Reinstate
Notice of Lis Pendens is tantamount to Forum Shopping.
Issue:

Whether or not the filing of an appeal and subsequently a separate motion is tantamount to forum
shopping.

Ruling:

No. Forum shopping is committed by a party who, having received an adverse judgment in one forum,
seeks another opinion in another court, other than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari.
More accurately, however, forum shopping is the institution of two or more suits in different courts,
either simultaneously or successively, in order to ask the courts to rule on the same or related causes
and/or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs. The essence of forum-shopping is the filing
of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or
successively, to secure a favorable judgment. Forum-shopping is present when in the two or more
cases pending, there is identity of parties, rights of action and reliefs sought.

In the present case, what were filed by the private respondent before the appellate court were an
appeal and a motion relative to the same case. The appeal and the motion filed by the private
respondent cannot be regarded as separate and distinct cases or suits. It is settled that the office of a
motion is not to initiate new litigation, but to bring up a material but incidental matter arising in the
progress of the case in which the motion was filed. A motion is not an independent right or remedy,
but is confined to incidental matters in the progress of a cause. It relates to some question that is
collateral to the main object of the action and is connected with and dependent upon the principal
remedy. Private respondent’s Motion to Reinstate/Re-annotate Notice of Lis Pendens is, at the very
least, a mere reiteration of one particular issue already raised in the appeal, and an insistence on the
urgency of resolving the same ahead of the other issues. The filing of said Motion cannot be
considered forum shopping and the admission thereof by the Court of Appeals did not constitute
grave abuse of discretion.