Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=49853:gr-170924-2007&amp;catid=1494&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 22:37:36+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 170924 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF CEZARI GONZALES, ET AL.
In the matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of CEZARI GONZALES and JULIUS MESA ROBERTO RAFAEL PULIDO, Petitioner, v. Gen. EFREN ABU, as Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and all persons acting in his stead and under his authority, and GEN. ERNESTO DE LEON, in his capacity as the Flag Officer in Command of the Philippine Navy, and all persons acting in his stead and under his authority, Respondents.
Before Us is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 90546 which dismissed the Petition for Habeas Corpus filed by petitioner Roberto Rafael Pulido (Pulido) in behalf of Cezari Gonzales and Julius Mesa, and imposed on petitioner the penalty of censure, and its Resolution2 dated 6 January 2006 denying his motion for reconsideration.
At around one o'clock in the morning of 27 July 2003, three hundred twenty-one (321) junior officers and enlisted personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) entered and took over the premises of the Oakwood Premiere Luxury Apartments (Oakwood) located at the Glorietta Complex, Ayala Avenue, Makati City. They disarmed the security guards of said establishment and planted explosives in its immediate surroundings.
The soldiers publicly announced that they went to Oakwood to air their grievances against the administration of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (President Arroyo). They declared their withdrawal of support from the Commander-in-Chief of the AFP - President Arroyo - and demanded her resignation and that of the members of her cabinet and top officers of both the AFP and the Philippine National Police (PNP).
At about one o'clock in the afternoon, President Arroyo issued Proclamation No. 427 declaring the country to be under a "state of rebellion." Consequently, she issued General Order No. 4 directing the AFP and the PNP to carry out all reasonable measures, giving due regard to constitutional rights, to suppress and quell the "rebellion."
After a series of negotiations between the soldiers and the government negotiators, the former agreed to return to barracks, thus ending the occupation of Oakwood.
Among those involved in the occupation of Oakwood were Cezari Gonzales and Julius Mesa, both enlisted personnel of the Philippine Navy. It is in their behalf that the Petition for Habeas Corpus was filed before the Court of Appeals.
On 2 August 2003, then AFP Chief of Staff Narciso L. Abaya issued a directive3 to all Major Service Commanders and to the Chief of the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (ISAFP) regarding the Custody of Military Personnel Involved in the 27 July 2003 Mutiny. On the strength thereof, Gonzales and Mesa were taken into custody by their Service Commander.
On 8 December 2003, Gonzales and Mesa were discharged5 from military service.
On 19 July 2004, both Gonzales and Mesa posted bail.10 On 20 July 2004, the RTC issued orders directing the Commanding Officer of Philippine Marine Corps, Fort Bonifacio, Makati City, to release Gonzales and Mesa from his custody.11 Despite said orders and their service to the marines, Gonzales and Mesa were not released.
On 21 July 2004, the People of the Philippines moved for partial reconsideration12 of the order granting bail. Prior to the resolution of said motion, Jovencito R. ZuÃ±o, Chief State Prosecutor, advised Brig. Gen. Manuel F. Llena, Judge Advocate General, to defer action on the provisional release of Gonzales and Mesa "until the Motion for Reconsideration shall have been resolved and attained finality."13 On 26 October 2004, the RTC denied the motion for partial reconsideration.
With the denial of the Motion for Partial Reconsideration, the People filed with the Court of Appeals on 4 February 2005 a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with urgent prayer for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction, asking for the nullification and setting aside of the orders dated 8 July 2004 and 26 October 2004 of Judge Oscar B. Pimentel for having been issued without jurisdiction and/or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Petition for Certiorari was raffled to the Seventh Division and was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 88440 entitled, "People of the Philippines v. Hon. Oscar B. Pimentel, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 148." The Court of Appeals (Seventh Division) did not issue a TRO and/or preliminary injunction.
Since Gonzales and Mesa continued to be in detention, a Petition for Habeas Corpus14 was filed by petitioner Pulido on their behalf on 22 July 2005. The case was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 90546 and raffled to the Third Division. In support thereof, it was argued that since Gonzales and Mesa are no longer subject to Military Law as they had been discharged from the service on 8 December 2003, and since they are not charged before a court martial, the military authorities have no jurisdiction to detain them, and there is no legal ground to detain them further because a court order for their release had already been issued.
On 18 August 2005, a return of the Writ of Habeas Corpus was made.16 Respondents prayed that the Petition for Habeas Corpus be dismissed primarily on two grounds: (1) the continued detention of Gonzales and Mesa is justified because of the pendency of the Petition for Certiorari questioning the order dated 8 July 2004 of the RTC granting bail to Gonzales and Mesa before the 7th Division of the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 88440; and (2) petitioner is guilty of forum shopping because of his failure to state in the petition that the order granting bail has been elevated to the Court of Appeals and pending before its 7th Division.
3. I have not heretofore commenced any action or proceeding involving the same issues, in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency and to the best of my knowledge, no action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; except for the related cases of "Eugene Gonzales et al. v. Gen. Narciso Abaya, et al., G.R. No. 164007 and "Humabono Adaza et al., v. Gen. Pedro Cabuay et al., G.R. No. 160792, both awaiting the resolution of the Supreme Court.
5. (sic, should be 4) If I should learn of any similar action or proceeding filed or is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report such fact within five (5) days therefrom to this Court.
The present petition and its accompanying certification likewise show that the petitioner never mentioned the pendency before the Seventh Division of this Court of the certiorari case, SP 88440, for the annulment of the lower court's order granting the soldiers-accused's petition for bail, when this same lower court order is cited as basis for the immediate release of Gonzales and Mesa in the present petition. All that the certification mentioned were the related cases pending before the Honorable Supreme Court. Neither did the petitioner comply with his undertaking under his certification to inform this Court within five (5) days of the pendency of any similar action or proceeding filed or is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, as in fact the certiorari case was already pending with this Court when the present petition was filed. The certiorari case was only brought to our attention after the respondents filed their Return of the Writ.
To be sure, the petitioner, who is also the counsel for the accused Gonzales and Mesa in the criminal case before Branch 148 RTC Makati City and who represents Gonzales and Mesa as private respondents in CA-G.R. SP No. 88440, cannot feign ignorance of the pendency of the certiorari case. Why he deliberately kept the pendency of the certiorari case hidden from us, has not been sufficiently explained. We have no doubt, however, that his deliberate act of withholding information on a material fact directly required to be disclosed by the Rules of Court cannot but have legal consequences.
The primary basis of the present petition is the bail granted to and posted by Gonzales and Mesa. This is very clear from the petitioner's argument that "The continued detention of the enlisted personnel constitutes violation of the lawful orders of the civilian court." He cited in support of this argument the grant and the posting of the bail, and the issuance of the release orders by the lower court. He did not disclose, however, what subsequently happened to the order granting bail. He deliberately omitted in his narration the fact that the People moved to reconsider this order. Thus, he gave the impression that the order granting bail immediately became enforceable and that Gonzales' and Mesa's continued detention is illegal because their constitutional rights to bail, which have received judicial imprimatur, were continuously being violated by the respondents.
The petitioner next omitted the fact that after the denial of its motion for reconsideration of the order granting bail, the People filed the certiorari case before this Court, seeking to annul the lower court's order. While we are aware of the rule that - the mere pendency of a petition for certiorari will not prevent the implementation of the assailed order unless the court where the petition was filed issues either a temporary restraining order or a writ or preliminary injunction - the filing of a petition for habeas corpus while the order granting bail is being questioned on a petition for certiorari raises issues beyond the immediate execution of the lower court's bail and release orders. They raise questions on the propriety of filing the habeas corpus petition to seek the release of persons under detention, at the same time that a petition regarding their continued detention and release are pending. Apparently, the petitioner wanted to avoid these questions, prompting him to actively conceal the subsequent motion for reconsideration of the bail order and the petition for certiorari directly questioning this same order. In short, the petitioner conveniently omitted in his narration of facts the material factual antecedents detrimental to his cause; he chose to narrate only the factual antecedents favorable to his cause.
We believe and so hold that his cannot and should not be done as this is precisely the reason why the rule against forum shopping has been put in place. The remedies sought being two sides of the same coin (i.e., the release of Gonzales and Mesa), they cannot be secured through separately-filed cases where issues of jurisdiction may arise and whose rulings may conflict with one another. To be sure, we clearly heard the petitioner say that there can be no conflict because the effectiveness of our ruling in this petition will depend on the nature and tenor of the ruling in the certiorari case; there is no basis for a release on habeas corpus if this same Court will rule in the certiorari case that the grant of bail is improper. For this very same reason, we should not entertain the present petition as the matter before us is already before another co-equal body whose ruling will be finally determinative of the issue of Gonzales' and Mesa's release. The Decision of the Seventh Division of this Court, heretofore footnoted, ordering the release on bail of Gonzales and Mesa drives home this point.
To be strictly accurate, the issues of detention and immediate release that are now before the two Divisions of this Court are likewise properly within the jurisdiction of the lower court who has original jurisdiction over the criminal case and who has issued the order granting bail in the exercise of this jurisdiction. If indeed there is a question relating to the immediate release of Gonzales and Mesa pursuant to the lower court's order pending the determination of the certiorari issues, such question should be brought before the lower court as the tribunal that has ordered the release, or before the Seventh Division of this Court in the exercise of its supervisory powers over the lower court. The Decision recently promulgated by the Seventh Division of this Court ordering the release on bail of the soldiers-accused effectively demonstrates this point.
On 5 September 2005, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration20 which the Court of Appeals (Special Former Third Division) denied in its resolution21 dated 6 January 2006.
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS ON THE GROUND OF FORUM SHOPPING.
A. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF THE ACTION AND LIMITED ITSELF TO THE ISSUE OF FORUM SHOPPING.
B. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN IMPOSING UPON PETITIONER THE PENALTY OF CENSURE.
C. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT PASSING UPON THE EXISTENCE OR ABSENCE OF VALID GROUNDS TO DETAIN JULIUS MESA AND CEZARI GONZALES.
Petitioner prays that the assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals be reversed and set aside, and an order be issued ordering respondents to immediately release Gonzales and Mesa. He further prays that the censure against him be also reversed and set aside.
Before respondents could comment on the petition, petitioner filed, with leave of court, a Motion to Withdraw the Prayer for the Immediate Release of Julius Mesa and Cezari Gonzales.22 Petitioner informed the Court that the Commanding General of the Philippine Marines had ordered the release of Gonzales and Mesa and surrendered their persons to the RTC of Makati City, Branch 148. Thus, Mesa and Gonzales are now enjoying temporary liberty by virtue of the release orders dated 20 July 2004 issued by the RTC. Petitioner asks that the prayer for the immediate release of Gonzales and Mesa be dismissed but asks that the other prayers in the petition be granted.
In its comment, the Solicitor General stressed that the habeas corpus petition has been rendered moot and academic by reason of the release of Mesa and Gonzales from detention and, in the absence of an actual case or controversy, it is impractical to consider and resolve issues involving the validity or legality of their detention, including the alleged refusal of the Court of Appeals to resolve said issues.
To support his contention that there was no forum shopping, petitioner asserts that the issues in the petitions for certiorari and habeas corpus are not similar/identical. As to his non-disclosure of respondents' filing of the motion for reconsideration and the Petition for Certiorari, petitioner claims that the same has no legal relevance to the Petition for Habeas Corpus because at the time he filed said petition, the order granting bail subsisted and has not been reversed or modified; and no TRO or injunction has been issued that would affect the efficacy or validity of the order granting the bail and the order directing the release of Mesa and Gonzales.
For filing a Petition for Habeas Corpus despite the pendency of the Petition for Certiorari that questioned the validity of the order granting bail, which order is precisely the very basis of the Petition for Habeas Corpus, petitioner is guilty of forum shopping.
As lucidly explained by the Court of Appeals, the ultimate relief sought by petitioner in both the certiorari and habeas corpus cases is the release of Gonzales and Mesa. Petitioner should not have filed the Petition for Habeas Corpus because the relief he is seeking therein is the same relief he is asking for in the certiorari case. Moreover, the main issue in both cases boils down to whether Gonzales and Mesa should be released on bail. Because of the presence of the elements of litis pendentia - - parties, reliefs and issue are substantially the same/similar in the two cases; and any decision in the certiorari case will be binding on the habeas corpus case - petitioner is thus guilty of forum shopping.
For his failure to inform the Court of Appeals of the pendency of the certiorari case, petitioner clearly violated his obligation to disclose within five days the pendency of the same or a similar action or claim as mandated in Section 5(c), Rule 728 of the Rules of Court.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 90546 dated 12 September 2005 is AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner.
Puno, C.J., Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria_Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, Tinga, Garcia, Velasco, Jr., Nachura, JJ., concur.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion with Associate Justices Eugenio S. Labitoria and Eliezer R. de Los Santos, concurring; CA rollo, pp. 201-220.
4 CA rollo, pp. 127-128.
5 CA rollo, pp. 66-67.
10 Rollo, pp. 111 and 114.
11 Id. at 110 and 113.
12 CA rollo, pp. 135-145.
14 CA rollo, pp. 2-67.
20 CA rollo, pp. 235-258.
21 Penned by Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion with Associate Justices Eliezer R. de Los Santos and Monina Arevalo Zenarosa, concurring; CA, rollo, pp. 275-286.
23 Olaguer v. Military Commission No. 34, The Trial Counsel of Military Commission No. 34, G.R. No. L-54558, 22 May 1987, 150 SCRA 144, 153.
24 Korea Exchange Bank v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 139460, 31 March 2006, 486 SCRA 166, 176.
25 Huibonhoa v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 153785, 3 August 2006, 497 SCRA 562, 572.
26 Philippine Radiant Products, Inc. v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co., Inc., G.R. No. 163569, 9 December 2005, 477 SCRA 299, 313-314.
27 Velasquez v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 150732, 31 August 2004, 437 SCRA 357, 367.
28 SEC. 5. Certification against forum shopping.' The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.