FACTS:

This case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by Producers Bank of the Philippines against Excelsa Industries, Inc. The bank seeks to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) which reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the resolution denying the bank's motion for reconsideration. The dispute originated from a loan agreement between the bank and Excelsa Industries, wherein the loan was secured by a real estate mortgage.

Excelsa later applied for a credit export advance from the bank, and when it presented the required documents, the bank purchased the drafts and export documents. However, the buyer of the exported goods refused to pay, prompting the bank to demand payment from Excelsa. When Excelsa failed to comply, the bank proceeded with the extrajudicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage, emerged as the highest bidder at the public auction, and eventually obtained new titles to the properties.

In response, Excelsa filed a lawsuit seeking the annulment of the foreclosure and damages. Initially, the RTC ruled in favor of the bank, but Excelsa appealed the decision to the CA and was successful in reversing the lower court's ruling.

In its petition, the bank contends that the CA should have dismissed the case due to forum shopping and argues that Excelsa had other available remedies. The bank also claims that Excelsa's petition for certiorari did not meet the requirements for such a petition. Additionally, the bank asserts that even if the issues raised by the CA are considered, the petition lacks merit and supporting evidence.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the petition for certiorari filed by respondent should be dismissed on the ground of forum shopping.

2. Whether or not the petition for certiorari should be dismissed as there was a remedy available to the respondent.

3. Whether or not the petition for certiorari alleged that any tribunal, board or officer acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

4. Whether or not the petition for certiorari should be dismissed for lack of merit and for not being supported by the evidence on record.

RULING:

1. The petition is meritorious.

PRINCIPLES:

• Forum shopping is a prohibited practice wherein a party repetitively seeks favorable judgments or rulings from different tribunals on the same issue or subject matter in order to increase the chance of obtaining a favorable result.

• A petition for certiorari should be dismissed if there is still a remedy available to the respondent.

• In a petition for certiorari, it is necessary to allege that any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

• A petition for certiorari should be dismissed if it lacks merit and is not supported by the evidence on record.