1/5/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In the Decision[22] dated May 23, 2017, the CA granted the petition. Accordingly, it annulled and set aside the RTC-Tagum Resolution dated August 15, 2016 as well as its Orders dated September 6, 2016 and September 28, 2016.[23] The CA decreed that the Decision of the RTC-Tagum in the PPO case had become final and executory and could no longer be altered except for clerical errors or mistakes. According to the CA, petitioner's Motion to Account was not in the nature of a motion for execution of a final and executory judgment, but pertained to a different subject matter; thus, it must be subject of a separate case. The CA also elucidated that petitioner's Motion to Account must be dismissed because petitioner committed forum shopping when he filed it despite the pendency of the Dissolution case before the RTC-Lapu-Lapu. It noted that: (1) there was forum shopping considering that these two actions pertained to the same parties, the rights asserted, and reliefs prayed for arose from the same facts; (2) and any ruling in them would amount to res judicata. The CA further noted that the action filed with the RTC-Tagum was a PPO case relating to acts of violence against women and their children defined under RA 9262. It stressed that settlement and distribution of properties were not among the objectives and reliefs specified under RA 9262. Hence, it ruled that the RTC-Tagum had no jurisdiction over petitioner's Motion to Account, since the PPO case was ruled against petitioner. It likewise explained that petitioner could not pray for the distribution of his and respondent's properties because, as respondent therein, petitioner was not allowed to include any counterclaim in the PPO case. Furthermore, the CA ruled that the RTC-Tagum committed grave abuse of its discretion when it cited respondent in indirect contempt even if its basis was a mere motion filed by petitioner, without observance of the required procedure in indirect contempt cases. Finally, the CA ratiocinated that the subject notice of appeal involved the disposition of the RTC-Tagum: (1) convicting respondent for indirect contempt; and (2) ordering the forfeiture of the co-owned properties in favor of petitioner. These matters, according to the CA, were appealable and the RTC-Tagum was unjustified in denying the notice of appeal. With the denial of his motion for reconsideration, petitioner filed this Petition raising the sole issue, to wit: Whether the [CA] erred in granting the petition for certiorari filed by respondent.[24] Petitioner's Arguments In the Petition for Review on Certiorari,[25] petitioner insists that he did not commit forum shopping when he led the Motion to Account before the RTC-Tagum even if he pursued it during the pendency of his Dissolution case with the RTC-Lapu-Lapu.[26] He https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65967 3/11