6/8/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly issue a cockpit license to him. A third party intervened to oppose the plaintiff’s application and to assert his own right by asking that the cockpit license be issued to him instead. In this case, petitioners wanted only to oppose the claims of respondents without asserting their unpaid mortgage. On the issue of forum-shopping, the Court found that although the Certiorari Case was supposed to be strictly limited to questioning the order of execution pending appeal, petitioners also sought to reverse the main decision by asking the Court of Appeals to declare it null and void and to set aside the evidence received ex-parte.[7] On the other hand, in the Appeal Case, petitioners filed their appellants’ brief and included a prayer for setting aside the execution pending appeal of said decision.[8] In addition, petitioners repeated issues in the Appeal Case, that were already raised and decided with finality in the Certiorari Case, regarding: 1) declaring defendants in default; and 2) receiving the evidence ex-parte. In other words, petitioners assailed the main decision in the Certiorari Case and the order of execution pending appeal in the Appeal Case. Petitioners, however, claim that when they filed the second case before the Court of Appeals, they divulged the other case earlier filed. Thus, by their disclosure, they should not be considered to have committed forum shopping. Ordinarily, as held by the Court, even if a party admits in the certification of non-forum shopping the existence of other related cases pending before another body, this fact alone does not exculpate such party who is obviously and deliberately seeking a more friendly forum for his case.[9] In this case, however, after hearing the parties in oral argument and after careful study of their memoranda submitted thereafter, the Court is of the view that petitioners’ acts in this case fall short of forum shopping. Considering that petitioners did inform the Court of Appeals when it filed the Certiorari Case of the fact of the earlier filing of the Appeal Case, and considering, further, the absence of bad faith on petitioners’ part or any deliberate intention to mislead the courts, the finding that petitioners engaged in forum shopping should be reconsidered. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Motion for Reconsideration is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The finding that petitioners were guilty of forum shopping is reconsidered and removed. The decision is AFFIRMED in all other respects. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Vitug, Ynares-Santiago, and Carpio, JJ., concur. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/45348 4/5