1/5/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly and T-263601.[39] On the other hand, in his Motion to Account filed in the PPO case, petitioner prayed for the court to order respondent to account all the proceeds of his and respondent's closed businesses and sold properties. Interestingly, petitioner listed the same properties[40] in the Motion to Account as those he listed in the Dissolution case. He also similarly stated in the Motion to Account that these properties were acquired by his and respondent's joint efforts or in other words, were co-owned by them. Added to these, after obtaining a favorable action with the RTC-Tagum granting the petitioner's Motion to Account, petitioner filed a notice to withdraw his Dissolution case with the RTC-Lapu-Lapu. As pointed out by the CA, such withdrawal of action, after obtaining a favorable ruling in another court, shows petitioner's "reprehensible act of trifling with court processes,"[41] and of his scheme into seeking the same or similar reliefs from different courts to increase his chance of getting a favorable decision. In sum, it cannot be mistaken that the Dissolution case and the Motion to Account (in the PPO case) were practically pursuant to the same facts and reliefs asked for, that is, for an accounting of the co-owned properties of the parties. They are so interrelated that any disposition made in any of them, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata.[42] Evidently, the subsequent filing of the Motion to Account despite the pendency of the Dissolution case was unnecessary and vexatious; thus, it should have been dismissed on the ground of forum shopping. Indirect contempt; procedure, requirements. In addition, petitioner posits hat the RTC-Tagum properly found respondent guilty of indirect contempt. He adds that since the court initiated motu proprio such charge, then he did not have to file a verified petition on the matter. The Court is not convinced. A person may be punished for indirect contempt when he or she disobeys or resists a lawful court order, among other acts enumerated in Section 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. The proceedings thereto may be commenced by the court initiating it motu proprio or by a verified petition with supporting particulars as well as certified true copies of relevant documents and upon full compliance with the requirements for filing of initiatory pleadings for civil actions.[43] As the CA observed, the RTC-Tagum found respondent guilty of indirect contempt, not on account of it having initiated the proceedings motu proprio, but on the basis of the motion filed by petitioner. Let it be recalled that in his Motion to Direct [Respondent] to Comply with the Order of this Court and Motion for Resolution, petitioner claimed that respondent disobeyed the lawful order of the court and prayed that she be cited in indirect contempt. Such being the case, petitioner should have had filed first a verified petition in pursuing the contempt charge against respondent. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65967 6/11