INTL CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES V CA (COLET, MANILA PILOTS ASSOC, ET AL.

) 249 SCRA 389 FRANCISCO; October 18, 1995

NATURE Petition for review on certiorari decision of CA FACTS - Phil. Ports Authority (PPO) issued Admin Order which opened pilotage services in the Phils to all licensed and accredited harbor pilots regardless of non-membership in existing harbor pilots association - United Harbor Pilots Assoc. and Manila Pilots Assoc made representations with DOTC acting sec. and PPA chairman to set aside AO, claiming violation of their exclusive right to provide pilotage services in the Phils. Failing, they filed in RTC Manila a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for TRO against DOTC Sec, PPA Chairman, and PPA Gen. Mgr. RTC granted (declared AO null and void, prelim injunction (apparently was issued Spet.8, 1989.) made permanent). This decision recognizing the exclusive right of United and MPA, after reaching the SC, eventually became final and executory. However, notwithstanding, International Container (ITCS) took over the pilotage services in the Manila Intl Port (MIP) area by virtue of a contract between it and PPA -thus, United and MPA filed petitions to hold PPA and ITCS in contempt of court (not resolved because OSG elevated this to the SC as to WON lower court still had jurisdiction in view of the finality of decision) -MPA then filed two separate cases: one for damages against ICTS, and one mandamus, prohibition with prelim mandatory injunction and damages against ITCS in RTC manila - RTC: restored and reinstated MPA to exclusive exercise of harbor pilotage in MIP; commanded ITCs to cease and desist from usurping or exercising right to pilotage. - ICTS filed petition for certiorari in CA (raised issue of forum shopping in view of pending actions in SC and RTC for contempt and damages). ICTS: there is forum shopping because issue on contempt petition is the very same issue involved in the mandamus and prohibition case.CA affirmed RTC. Hence, this petition ISSUE 1. WON there was forum shopping HELD 1. NO Ratio For forum shopping to exist, both actions must involve the same transactions, same essential facts and circumstances. Furthermore, the actions must also raise identical causes of action, subject matter, and issues. Reasoning Citing the CA: The facts which gave rise to the contempt petition is directed against what was perceived to be violative of the permanent injunction issued by Judge Flojo not to implement the open pilotage policy as provided for under PPA AO, . . . . Upon the other hand the complaint [for mandamus and prohibition] is anchored on the alleged

usurpation of the right of respondents to the sole and exclusive exercise of Harbor Pilotage only in the MIP area, from Oct. 29, 1992 up to the present and the corresponding claim for damages Disposition Petition is denied. Decision affirmed