View full case

TOKIO MARINE MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY INCORPORATED v. JORGE VALDEZ

FACTS:

Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance Company Incorporated (Tokio Marine) is an insurance company in the Philippines. Jorge Valdez, a former unit manager of Tokio Marine, filed a complaint against the individual petitioners, who are corporate officers of Tokio Marine, for allegedly violating the terms of the Unit Management Contract by refusing to pay his commissions and bonuses. Valdez requested various forms of relief, including actual damages, moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and costs of the suit. He also sought permission from the court to litigate as an indigent plaintiff, which was granted.

The petitioners then filed separate motions to dismiss the complaint, but the trial court denied these motions. The trial court also denied petitioners' motions for reconsideration. In response, Valdez lodged criminal complaints against the petitioners with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City. The petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, challenging the denial of their motions to dismiss. The Court of Appeals granted their petition and issued a writ of preliminary injunction.

Valdez subsequently filed a notice of taking a deposition upon oral examination with the Court of Appeals, which prompted the petitioners to file a petition to cite Valdez in contempt of court. However, the Court of Appeals dismissed these petitions and lifted the writ of preliminary injunction. In response, the petitioners filed consolidated petitions for review on certiorari.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the ex parte motion to litigate as an indigent is defective for lack of supporting affidavits from the immediate family members.

  2. Whether the respondent committed forum shopping.

  3. Whether the certification of non-forum shopping in the petitions filed before the Court of Appeals is in substantial compliance with Section 5 of Rule 7.

  4. Whether the deposition taken in violation of the injunction issued by the Court of Appeals constitutes indirect contempt of court.

RULING:

  1. The ex parte motion to litigate as an indigent is not defective for lack of supporting affidavits from the immediate family members. Section 19 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that it is the litigant alone who shall execute the affidavit. The Rule does not require the execution of sworn statements by all members of the litigant's immediate family.

  2. The respondent did not commit forum shopping. Forum shopping is defined as the act of a litigant who repetitively avails of judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and raising substantially the same issues. The certification against forum shopping required under Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure was duly complied with by the respondent.

  3. The certification of non-forum shopping in the petitions filed before the Court of Appeals is in substantial compliance with Section 5 of Rule 7.

  4. The deposition taken in violation of the injunction issued by the Court of Appeals does not constitute indirect contempt of court.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In a suit in forma pauperis, an indigent litigant is a person who is indigent although not a public charge, meaning that he has no property or income sufficient for his support aside from his labor, even if he is self-supporting when able to work and in employment.

  • The term "immediate family" includes those members of the same household who are bound together by ties of relationship but does not include those who are living apart from the particular household of which the individual is a member.

  • Failure to comply with the certification against forum shopping requirement shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing.

  • Contempt of court refers to a defiance of the authority, justice, or dignity of the court.

  • There are two forms of contumacious acts: direct and indirect contempt.

  • Indirect contempt refers to contumacious acts perpetrated outside of the sitting of the court that tend to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice.

  • Before one may be convicted of indirect contempt, there must be compliance with the requisites of a charge in writing, an opportunity for the respondent to comment, and an opportunity to be heard by himself or by counsel.

  • Courts must exercise their contempt powers sparingly.