MANILA (UPDATE) - For simultaneously filing pleadings before two different courts, the City of Makati lost to Taguig City its bid for ownership of prime property Fort Bonifacio, now known as commercial district Bonifacio Global City (BGC).

The Court of Appeals (CA), on grounds of forum shopping, dismissed the City of Makati’s bid to seek a reversal of a lower court ruling which granted ownership of BGC to the City of Taguig.

In an 18-page resolution by its Special Former Sixth Division dated March 8, 2017, penned by Associate Justice Edwin Sorongon, the appellate court granted Taguig City’s motion for the dismissal of Makati City’s petition which sought a reversal of the ruling of the Pasig City Regional Trial Court (RTC) in favor of Taguig City, as the appellate court invoked a Supreme Court (SC) ruling that found Makati City guilty of forum shopping.

The Supreme Court (SC) decision, dated June 15, 2016, found Makati City guilty of "willful and deliberate forum shopping" when it simultaneously filed (1) a motion for reconsideration (MR) with the Pasig City RTC for a reversal of the lower court’s ruling that Fort Bonifacio Military Reservation (which now comprises BGC) is part of Taguig City’s territory; and (2) a petition before the CA seeking annulment of the RTC’s ruling.

“We grant Taguig’s motion to dismiss for forum shopping… the Supreme Court has now spoken. Ineluctably, we must adhere. The issue of whether Makati committed willful and deliberate forum shopping in these cases has been finally laid to rest no less than by the Supreme Court.

"Verily, the acts of a party of his counsel clearly constituting willful and deliberate forum shopping shall be a ground for the summary dismissal of the case with prejudice, and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as be a cause for administrative sanctions against the lawyer,” the CA resolution read.

Under Rule 7, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, forum shopping constitutes a ground for summary dismissal of a case.

The appellate court stressed that the rules are in place “to be faithfully complied with, and allowing them to be ignored or lightly dismissed to suit the convenience of party like the petitioner (Makati City) was impermissible.”

The appellate court further pointed out that technicalities and rules may only be relaxed “for the furtherance of justice and to benefit the deserving” or only in “exceptional situations.”

The CA also said that it was worth stressing that the SC, in ruling that Makati City was guilty of forum shopping, held that Makati City’s action gave rise precisely to the harm that the rule against forum shopping is intended to avoid: sowing conflicts between the courts it elevated its case to.

“In this light, and in the absence of any justification on the part of Makati, this court cannot but draw the conclusion that Makati’s simultaneous availment of the aforementioned reliefs was not a by-product of mere thoughtlessness or negligence but of a willful and deliberate act of forum shopping.

“The necessary legal consequence of dismissal of this case my perforce follow,” the CA said.