G.R. No.

175730 July 5, 2010

HERMINIO T. DISINI, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, THE REPUBLI O! THE PHILIPPINES, "# $%&$%#%'(%) *y
(+% O!!IE O! THE SOLIITOR GENERAL ,OSG-, "') (+% PRESIDENTIAL OMMISSION ON
GOOD GO.ERNMENT ,PGG-, Respondents.
To&/01 Deposition? Forum Shopping?
Do0($/'%1
1. D1 There are two instances when the defendant can take depositions under Section 1 of Rule !"
#1$ after the court has ac%uired &urisdiction over the defendant or the propert' su(&ect of the
action) and #$ after an answer has (een served. *oth instances presuppose that the court has
alread' ac%uired &urisdiction over the defendant.
. !S1 To constitute forum shopping, there should (e similarit' in the issue and in the relief.
!ATS1
1. The Repu(lic #through the P+,,$ filed " 0/2/l 0o3&l"/'( 4o$ $%0o'2%y"'0%, $%2%$#/o',
"00ou'(/'5, $%#(/(u(/o', "') )"3"5%# against petitioner -erminio Disini, spouses Ferdinand
and .melda /arcos and Rodolfo 0aco(. 112345
2. The +omplaint was amended to include Rafael Sison a part'6defendant.
a. The 7mended +omplaint alleged that Disini acted in unlawful concert with his co6
defendants in ac%uiring and accumulating /ll65o((%' 7%"l(+ through the misappropriation
of pu(lic funds, plunder of the nation8s wealth, e9tortion, em(e::lement, and other acts of
corruption.
3. Sandigan(a'an /##u%) #u33o'# on the 7mended +omplaint.
a. 7s to Disini" R%(u$'%) u'#%$2%) for the reason that the Roman famil' occupied the said
residence.
(. Sison and 0aco( filed their respective answers
c. /arcos spouses were declared in default.
;. 7s to his co6defendants"
a. 0aco( was dropped as part'6defendant considering that he will testif' as a state witness.
(. 7s to Sison, 112245 the <S, filed a M"'/4%#("(/o' "') U$5%'( Mo(/o' (o D$o& Rafael
Sison as Part'6Defendant.
=. 112235 the Repu(lic filed "' E8 P"$(% Mo(/o' 4o$ L%"2% (o S%$2% Su33o'# *y Pu*l/0"(/o' #in
order to ac%uire &urisdiction over Disini$
a. During the pendenc', 7lias of Summons was issued twice (ut (oth summonses were
returned unserved.
>. 1??5 the Repu(lic filed a Mo(/o' (o R%#ol2% #the 1223 motion$ 6 GRANTED
a. The summons and the 7mended +omplaint were pu(lished in People8s Tonight, with a
cop' sent (' registered mail to Disini8s last known address.
(. Petitioner was )%0l"$%) /' )%4"ul( for failure to file his responsive pleading within >?
da's from the pu(lication of the summons.
4. Repu(lic asked the Sandiganbayan to resolve the motion filed in 1224 #dropping Sison$ so that
the' could proceed with the e9 parte presentation of evidence.
3. @ears after"
a. +ounsel of the Repu(lic received an order from the Swiss Federal +ourt ordering him to
su(mit a forfeiture order from a Philippine court with regard to the assets of Disini not
later than Dec. !?, ??>) otherwise, it will revoke the free:e order on the Disini Swiss
7ccounts.
2. 1??>9 Petitioner Disini 4/l%) " Mo(/o' (o L/4( O$)%$ o4 D%4"ul( "') 4o$ L%"2% (o !/l% "') A)3/(
A(("0+%) A'#7%$, (o5%(+%$ 7/(+ "' A'#7%$ (o A3%')%) o3&l"/'( 7/(+ o3&ul#o$y
ou'(%$0l"/3#.
a. -e maintained that he never received summons nor an' pleadings from the parties.
(. -is answer contained affirmative defenses such as the court8s failure to ac%uire
&urisdiction over his person through service (' pu(lication and the failure of the 7mended
+omplaint to state a cause of action against him.
1?. Aater on, Sandigan(a'an granted P+,,8s motion to drop Sison
11. S"')/5"'*"y"'1 Disini8s /otion to Aift Default <rder is DBC.BDD
1. Disini filed an %8($%3%ly u$5%'( 3o(/o' 4o$ $%0o'#/)%$"(/o'.
a. -e pra's that the e9 parte presentation of evidence (e held in a(e'ance until the
resolution of the motion.
1!. -owever, Repu(lic8s e9 parte presentation of evidence (egan (efore the +lerk of +ourt.
1;. S1 Disini filed a P%(/(/o' 4o$ %$(/o$"$/ : Rul% ;5
a. -e protests the continuation of the e9 parte proceedings
1=. S"')/5"'*"y"'1 Disini8s B9tremel' Ergent /FR is DBC.BDD
16. The Repu(lic presented 1? witnesses and it filed its Formal <ffer of Bvidence.
17. Despite the pendenc' of his Petition #Rule >=$ with the S+, Disini filed with the Sandiganbayan a
S%0o') Mo(/o' (o L/4( (+% O$)%$ o4 D%4"ul(.
13. From ??261?, he filed different motions (efore the Sandigan(a'an"
a. Petitioner filed a /otion to B9punge or +ross6B9amine Plaintiff8s Fitnesses.
(. -e also filed a /otion to B9punge Bvidence
c. -e filed a /otion to B9punge Rolando ,apud8s Deposition
d. -e filed a /otion to B9punge or +ross6B9amine Plaintiff8s witnesses.
e. -e filed a /otion for Aeave to Take D%&o#/(/o'.
ISSUE<11 FGC the issue of Halidit' of Service of Summons is /ooted (' Holuntar' 7ppearance
HELD1 @es
Petitioner originall' sought the nullification of the proceedings (efore the Sandiganbayan on the theor' of
lack of &urisdiction over his person, premised on the alleged impropriet' in the service of summons.
-owever, petitioner su(se%uentl' filed several motions with the Sandiganbayan which sought various
"44/$3"(/2% $%l/%4# from that court, sans an' %ualification of the nature of its appearance and 7/(+ou(
$%#%$2/'5 o$ $%/(%$"(/'5 /(# &$%2/ou# o*=%0(/o' o' (+% 5$ou') o4 l"0> o4 =u$/#)/0(/o' o2%$ (+%
&%$#o'. These motions are" #see I12 facts$
#a$ /otion to B9punge B9hi(its 999 cJ,$ 999
#f$ /otion for Aeave to Take Deposition (ased on Section 1 of Rule ! #Depositions Pending
7ction or De *enne Bsse$.
3>
.n regard to the last mentioned #letter F$ Mo(/o' 4o$ L%"2% (o T">% D%&o#/(/o', it is important to note
that there are two instances when the defendant can take depositions under Section 1 of Rule !" ,1-
"4(%$ (+% 0ou$( +"# "0?u/$%) =u$/#)/0(/o' o2%$ (+% )%4%')"'( o$ (+% &$o&%$(y #u*=%0( o4 (+% "0(/o'@
and ,2- "4(%$ "' "'#7%$ +"# *%%' #%$2%). *oth instances presuppose that the court has alread'
ac%uired &urisdiction over the defendant. *' seeking the relief contained in this provision, petitioner is
deemed to have voluntaril' su(mitted himself to the &urisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Thus, petitioner
ma' (e held to have waived his o(&ections regarding the lack of &urisdiction over his person (' seeking
affirmative relief through the said provision.
0urisprudence holds that an o(&ection (ased on lack of &urisdiction over the person is waived when the
defendant files a motion or pleading which seeks affirmative relief other than the dismissal of the case.
ISSUE<21 FGC there was Forum6shopping
H%l)1 @es.
7 Second /otion to Aift the <rder of Default was filed during the pendenc' of the instant Petition. Bo(+
$%3%)/%# #%%> 4$o3 )/44%$%'( 4o$" %8"0(ly (+% #"3% ul(/3"(% $%l/%4 ,l/4(/'5 o4 (+% )%4"ul( o$)%$
/##u%) *y (+% Sandiganbayan- "') $"/#% (+% #"3% /##u% ,2"l/)/(y o4 (+% )%4"ul( o$)%$ "') (+%
&$o&$/%(y o4 l/4(/'5 #"/) )%4"ul( o$)%$-. .n availing himself of these two remedies, petitioner has
engaged in forum6shopping.
There is forum shopping when one part' repetitivel' avails of several &udicial remedies in different courts,
simultaneousl' or successivel', all su(stantiall' founded on the same transactions and the same
essential facts and circumstances, and all raising su(stantiall' the same issues either pending in, or
alread' resolved adversel', (' some other court. Forum shopping is a prohi(ited malpractice and
condemned as trifling with the courts and their processes. .t is proscri(ed (ecause it unnecessaril'
(urdens the courts with heav' caseloads, and undul' ta9es the manpower and financial resources of the
&udiciar'. .t is inimical to the orderl' administration of &ustice as it creates the possi(ilit' of conflicting
decisions (eing rendered (' two courts, and opens the s'stem to the possi(ilit' of manipulation.
AHERE!ORE, the Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED. +osts against petitioner.