ELEVENTH DIVISION

[CA-G.R. UDK SP No. 2521  November 27, 1997.]

RAYMUNDO BARRID, petitioner, vs. HON. LAURO G. SANDOVAL, as Judge, RTC of Baloc, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, Branch 37, ET AL., respondents.

R E S O L U T I O N

ABAD SANTOS, JR., J p:

This is a petition denominated as "an appeal by way of petition for review on certiorari under the provisions of Rule 42 of the Rules of Court," seeking for the reversal of the Order of the respondent Judge dated April 4, 1997, dismissing petitioner's complaint for annulment of decision, damages and attorney's fees in CIVIL CASE NO. 06-D (97) for lack of jurisdiction, and the Order dated June 3, 1997, denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.

The instant petition deserves to be dismissed outright.

1.      Petitioner did not remit the required docketing fees as required in Section 1, Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court, which states that:

"Sec. 1.         Payment of Fees. — Upon the filing of the pleading or other application which initiates an action or proceeding, the fees prescribed therefore shall be paid in full."

2.      There is no written explanation why petitioner failed to serve personally the copies of the petition upon respondents, as required under Section 11, Rule 13, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

Nevertheless, even brushing aside the above formal infirmities, the merits of the petition has nothing to commend with.

It appears from the petition and its annexes that on April 16, 1991, petitioner filed a petition for recovery of possession against Reynaldo Santos and Dominador Marinas with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board of Cabanatuan City, docketed as Reg. Case No. 1328'NE'91-A.

On July 20, 1993, the Provincial Adjudicator rendered its Decision in favor of Reynaldo Santos and against herein petitioner. Petitioner appealed said Decision to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, which on July 24, 1996, promulgated a Decision affirming the Decision of the Provincial Adjudicator.

From the Decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, petitioner filed a petition with this Court in CA-G.R. SP NO. 40544 which was dismissed by this Court for being a wrong mode of appeal. Not satisfied, petitioner went to the Supreme Court in G.R. NO. UDK-12183, but his petition was likewise dismissed for failure to submit affidavit of service.

Still not satisfied, petitioner went to the respondent Court and filed a Complaint for the annulment of the Decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform, Damages and Attorney's Fees which was dismissed by the respondent Court for lack of jurisdiction.

Clearly, the above factual backdrop of this case eloquently shows that petitioner has indeed resorted to forum-shopping. In Villanueva vs. Adre, 1 the Supreme Court explained that there is forum shopping when by reason of an adverse decision in one forum, defendant ventures to another for a more favorable resolution of his case.

In the case of Gabriel vs. Court of Appeals 2, the Supreme Court explained, that:

"Such filing of multiple petitions constitutes abuse of the Court's processes and improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of justice that will be punished as contempt of court. Needless to add, the lawyer who filed such repetitious petitions subject himself to disciplinary action for incompetence (for not knowing any better) or for willful violation of his duties as an attorney to act with all good fidelity to the courts and to maintain only such actions as appear to him to be just and are consistent with truth and honor."

Furthermore, the respondent Court correctly ruled that it has no jurisdiction over the Complaint of petitioner for the annulment of the DARAB Decision.

Under Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95 (now Rule 43, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure), it is the Court of Appeals which has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from the Decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board. It may noted, however, that petitioner has already filed a petition with this Court questioning the same Decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform, docketed as CA-G.R. SP NO. 40544, but unfortunately, his petition was dismissed by this court for wrong mode of appeal. Petitioner's remedy to question the Decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform has been effectively foreclosed by petitioner's ineptness. His only recourse left is to file administrative case against his counsel.

WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the instant petition is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE and is ordered DISMISSED for insufficient in form and substance and for lack of merit.

Petitioner and his counsel are hereby warned that a similar infraction of forum-shopping shall be dealt with accordingly.

SO ORDERED.

               Reyes and Aquino, JJ ., concur.

Footnotes

1.         172 SCRA 876.

2.         72 SCRA 272.