Mr. Humpty filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a complaint against Ms. Dumpty for damages. The RTC, after due proceedings, rendered a decision granting the complaint and ordering Ms. Dumpty to pay damages to Mr. Humpty. Ms. Dumpty timely filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals (CA), questioning the RTC decision. Meanwhile, the RTC granted Mr. Humpty’s motion for execution pending appeal. Upon receipt of the RTC’s order granting execution pending appeal, Ms. Dumpty filed with the CA another case, this time a special civil action for certiorari assailing said RTC order. Is there a violation of the rule against forum shopping considering that two (2) actions emanating from the same case with the RTC were filed by Ms. Dumpty with the CA? Explain. (4%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
No, there is no violation of the rule against forum shopping. Under settled jurisprudence, a party may validly challenge a main decision in a regular appeal and simultaneously assail an order of execution pending appeal via certiorari without violating
Unlock the full Remedial Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Is filing an ordinary appeal against a main judgment and a certiorari petition against execution pending appeal considered forum shopping?
Challenging a main judgment via appeal and an execution order via certiorari raises distinct issues and is not forum shopping.
What essential test determines whether a party has committed forum shopping under remedial law?
Forum shopping exists when the elements of litis pendentia or res judicata are present.
What is the proper procedural remedy to challenge an interlocutory RTC order granting execution pending appeal?
An interlocutory order granting execution pending appeal is assailable via a Rule 65 certiorari petition.
What condition must be satisfied for a trial court to validly grant execution pending appeal under Rule 39?
Choices available with full access.
Why does a judgment in a Rule 65 certiorari assailing execution pending appeal not constitute res judicata in the main appeal?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Forum Shopping Test
Under settled jurisprudence, forum shopping exists when a party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and same essential facts. To constitute forum shopping, the elements of litis pendentia must be present, or a final judgment in one action must amount to res judicata in the other. Where two proceedings involve entirely distinct issues, causes of action, and sought reliefs, no forum shopping occurs.
2. Execution Pending Appeal
Discretionary execution or execution pending appeal under Rule 39, Section 2 of the Rules of Court is an extraordinary remedy granted before the finality of a judgment. It requires good reasons stated in a special order issued after due notice and hearing. Because an order granting execution pending appeal is interlocutory and distinct from the main judgment on the merits, assailing such an order does not reopen or affect the underlying appeal on the substantive merits of the main case.
3. Dual Appellate Remedies
A party assailing a judgment on the merits via ordinary appeal under Rule 41 may simultaneously file a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 to challenge an interlocutory order granting execution pending appeal. These two remedies are separate and independent. The main appeal seeks to reverse the trial court's disposition of the primary cause of action, while the certiorari petition seeks to annul the discretionary execution order for grave abuse of discretion. Consequently, pursuing both remedies simultaneously does not constitute forum shopping.