PCIB et al, vs. CA G.R. No. 114951.

 July 18, 2003
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP
No. 31251 nullifying the Order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati in Civil  Case  No.  912495 (Case A for
brevity) dated February 23, 1993 lifting the writ of preliminary injunction earlier issued by the said RTC.

Legend:
R- Ley Construction, LC Builders, MCC & Spouses Manuel and Janet Ley
P – Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIB)
Case A – Civil Case No 912495
Case B - Civil Case No. 9365135 
Case C - Civil Case No 93

FACTS:
 Ni loan si R of 98,800,000 from P
 Iyang gi prenda as security the ff properties:
a) Property in Mandaluyong TCT 43131
b) Property in Valenzuela TCT 6572 & 6580
c) 3 ka vchattel mortgage over some personal property
 Wa kabayad di gipa extraducially forclose ni P, gi schedule nag auction sale
 R ni file ug complaint against PCIB and the sheriffs, for injunction and damages, with TRO to enjoin the
sale. Naa silay 8 ka causes of action. Sa RTC of Makati ni Civil Case No 912495.
 RTC of Makati thereafter issued a TRO temporarily restraining sheriffs from proceeding with the auction as
scheduled
 The application for issuance of preliminary injunction was set for hearing.
 P filed a motion to dismiss, denied. RTC issued an order granting a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining
the auction sales
 P filed a MR- denied.
 P filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus sa CA. Denied.
 Meanwhile, nagpulig abogado si R. From Quisimbing Torres and Evangelista, gipulihans San
Vicente De Leon & Associates.
 P then filed an answer to R’s complaint with a second motion to lift the preliminary injunction. And served a
copy to San Vicente De Leon and Associates.
 San Vicente thru a manifestation, said di sila abogado ni P aning kasoha. Kaduha nibalibad.
 P thru a counter manifestation, said that abogado na ninyo unya binding nang notice gihatag diha. And
prayed to the court to order R to indicate kinsa jud ila abogado. a copy of this manifestation was SERVED
TO R. Also the second motion to lift the preliminary injunction gi SERVE pud ni R ani tyma. Para sure
makadawat jd sila. Wa sila mu oppose sa motion ug wa pud sila motunga sa hearing on the said motion..
 Therafter, R ni hire ni Atty. Malaya as counsel aning case A. Ni appearance nis Malaya pero wa gihapon mu
oppose/comment sa motion.
 Thus, thereafter, RTC issued an order LIFTING the writ of preliminary injunction.
 Thus the sheriffs issued a notice of sale adtong mga properties, and schedule the sale of the same. Katong
sa Mandaluyong ug sa Venezuela properties, and the CHATTELS
 Si R, instead of filing with the RTC Makati an MR of its order lifting the injunction, ni file nuon sa laing court-
which was raffled to RTC Manila BRANCH 34, a complaint for injunction + damages against P with a TRO to
enjoin the auction of the CHATTELS (not the Real Properties ha) as scheduled, alleging that wa sila nahatagi
ug notice of the sale. This was named Civil Case No. 9365135  (NOTE: for brevity, this is Case B)
 In opposition, P filed a motion to dismiss
 RTC Manila BRANCH 34 granted and issued TRO.
 Meanwhile, R thru Atty Malaya proceeded with Case A by filing a motion to admit Reply and set for hearing

 Meawhile, the foreclosure sale of the REAL Properties proceeded, and as highest bidder, PCIB ka angkon.
 Therafter, R, now thru Qusimbing Torres and Evangelista Law Office, filed an emergency motion for
reconsideration with a application in RTC MAKATI for
temporary restraining order of the February 23, 1993 Order of the court lifting the writ
 of preliminary injunction previously issued, for the reinstatement of the writ of preliminary injunction issued
by the court on October 16, 1991, and for the expansion of the coverage of the said writ.
 They alleged that wa sila kadawat sa copy adtong second motion to lift the writ of preliminary
injunction and alleged nga Atty Malaya was merely their collaborating counsel
 Palag si P, ingon xa Atty Malaya is their counsel of record ato tyma and alleged nga guilty of forum
shopping si R when it filed a petition for TRO sa RTC Manila
 However, RTC of Makati did not issue any TRO
 Meanwhile, also, the RTC of MANILA Branch 34, granted the motion to dismiss by P.
The court ratiocinated that it had no power to interfere by injunction with the judgment or orders
of the RTC of Makati of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction.
 R did not file MR
 Thus, deputy sherrif issued a notice of sale on the CHATTELS setting a date for auction.
 Barely 4 days after the dismissal abovementioned, R, thru Atty Malaya, filed another complaint against P
and sheriff to enjoin the sale and, this time, it was raffled to RTC Manila BRANCH 54.
 RTC MANILA BRANCH 54 issued a TRO enjoining the auction of the CHATTELS. This was named Civil Case
No 9365757  (NOTE: For brevity, this is CASE C)
 Meanwhile, R, this time thru Qusimbing Law Office, filed a petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with the
COURT OF APPEALS for nullification of the order of RTC Makati in Case A, lifting the preliminary injunction it
previously issued. Also asked for a TRO enjoining the auction of the CHATTELS, even though this same
subject was also pending in RTC Manila on 2 different cases Case B and Case C.
 R alleged that they were denied their right to due process kay katong second motion ni P to lift
preliminary injunction, wa daw sila na tagai ug copy kay instead sa Quisimbing Law office ihatag,
didto ni P gihatag sa San Vicente Law Office, in which San Vicente was their counsel only in the CA
case but in the RTC Makati case, it was still Qusimbing, thus ineffectual daw tong copy gihatag ni
P, thus R was denied due process daw.
 CA agreed and set aside, and declared as null and void, the RTC Makati lifting the preliminary injunction.
 CA held that R was indeed denied his right to due process
 CA held that R did not engage in forum shopping
 Meanwhile, in Case C, the RTC Manila branch 54, dismissed the complaint of R holding that R engaged in
forum shopping and that it was improper for the said court to interfere with a case pending in RTC Makati
(Case A) being a court of equal rank, and more so with pending certiorari filed in the CA.

ISSUE:
1. W/N R was denied their right to due process
2. W/n R engaged in forum shopping

HELD:
1. NO.
 What the law abhors and
prohibits is the absolute absence of the opportunity to be heard. Hence, a party cannot feign denial 
of due process when he had been afforded the opportunity to present his side.
  As long as a party is given the opportunity to be heard either
through oral arguments or through pleadings, such as a motion for reconsideration, and defend his
interest in due course, he would have no reason to complain for it is this opportunity to be heard th
at makes up the essence of procedural due process
 In this case, the private respondents were accorded their right to due process but by their
negligence they failed to take the appropriate immediate remedies
to protect their rights and interests.
  It is safe to
presume that Atty. Malaya did confer with the Quisumbing Torres & Evangelista Law Office and tha
t
the private respondents turned over to their new counsel the copy of petitioner PCIBs second moti
on that had been served on them. However, the private respondents, through their counsel
Atty. Malaya, failed  to  file  any  comment  or  opposition  to  the  second  motion  of  petitioner 
PCIB.  It was not
unreasonable for the RTC of Makati to assume that the private respondents would no longer file an
y opposition to or comment on the petitioners second motion, and thus resolved petitioner PCIBs
second motion.
2. YES.
 The CA erred in holding that the private respondents did not indulge in forum shopping when they
filed their complaints for injunction in the RTC of Manila in Civil Cases Nos. 9365135 and 9365757
despite the pendency of their complaint for injunction in Civil Case No. 912495 with the RTC of
Makati
 It is clear as day that the private respondents filed their complaints in Civil Cases Nos. 93-
65135 and 9365757 for injunctive relief after
the RTC of Makati set aside on February 23, 1993 the writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issu
ed by it. In so doing, the private respondents are guilty of forum shopping.
 It bears stressing that the essence of forum
shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause or action, eithe
r
simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment or other relief. It
exists where the essential requisites of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one
case will amount to res judicata in another.  
 The private respondents even brazenly violated the principle of judicial stability, which essentially
states that the judgment or order of a court of competent jurisdiction may
not be interfered with by any court of concurrent jurisdiction for
thee simple reason that the power to open, modify or vacate the said
judgment or order is not only possessed but is restricted to the court
in which the judgment or order is rendered or issued.
  The private respondents were able to frustrate the February 23, 1993 Order of the
RTC of Makati not only once but three times, through temporary restraining orders issued
by the RTC of Manila, and through the assailed decision of the CA. The two branches of the RTC of
Manila saw through the nefarious ploy of the private respondents and  issued  separate  orders 
dismissing  the  complaints  on  the  ground  of  litis  pendentia,  forum
shopping, and violation of the principle of judicial stability. 

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of
Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 31251 is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The complaint of the private
respondents in Civil Case No. 912495 is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
This is without prejudice to the liability for contempt of the counsels for the private respon
dents for violation of the Supreme Court Circular No. 28-
91 on forum shopping, as may be determined by the trial courts concerned.