CITY
OF
represented
by the Honorable
REYNALDO
O. MALONZO, Present:
in
his capacity as City Mayor,
Petitioner,
QUISUMBING, J.,
Chairperson,
-
versus - CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA, and
VELASCO, JJ.
COURT
OF APPEALS,
GOTESCO
INVESTMENTS, INC.,
JOSE GO and YOLANDA O. Promulgated:
ALFONSO, in her capacity as
Register of Deeds of
Respondents.
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Tinga,
J.:
The instant petition for review
assails the
The
undisputed facts, as found by the Court of Appeals, follow.
On P136,114,800.00.[2]
However,
the Commission on Audit (COA) disapproved the Deed of Sale. Nonetheless, on motion for reconsideration,
the COA approved the proposed sale on the condition that the selling price is
pegged at P8,926.39 per square meter, or P182,085,078.30 for the
entire property. As a consequence
thereof, on
On P182,085,078.30. Mayor Malonzo received the documents but
refused to sign the amended deed of sale. [4]
In an opinion dated P182,085,078.30
as payment for the property, as well as P910,425.39 for transfer tax and
P9,687,440.17 for real estate tax to the City Treasurer and to Malonzo
but these payments were refused. In view
of the refusal, Gotesco filed Civil Case No. C-18274,[5]
seeking the consignation of the purchase price and tax payments.[6]
Meanwhile, on
On
Gotesco moved for the dismissal of
Civil Case No. 18337, but its motion was denied by the trial court through its
Order dated
On
In its
According to petitioner, the Court of
Appeals had no basis for reversing its earlier Decision since private
respondents did not present any new evidence or novel arguments, such that
their motion for reconsideration contained mere reiterations of their original
submissions in their petition.[14] Petitioner insists that it is not guilty of
forum-shopping since the cases it filed involved different issues and causes of
action. Thus, petitioner argues, there
being different causes of action, issues and objectives between the cases, it
cannot be said that forum-shopping exists.[15] Likewise, there can be no res judicata among the cases since i) they have different causes of action; ii) the
evidence presented in Civil Case No. C-18308 are not sufficient to sustain the
cause of action in the second case; iii) there is no identity of parties; and
iv) there is no identity of subject matter.[16]
For their part, respondents claim
that the petition was filed out of time.[17]
Also, they aver that the petition is defective in form since i) it violated the
material data rule; ii) it was instituted by a non-party, Reynaldo O. Malonzo,
and not by the City of Caloocan, as in fact in the attached verification,
Malonzo referred to himself as the “petitioner in the above-entitled case,” and
there was no resolution from the City Council
authorizing him to file the instant petition; and iii) petitioner failed to attach a copy of
the complaint in Civil Case No.
Moreover, respondents argue that the
Court of Appeals is correct in ruling that forum-shopping and litis
pendentia exist. According to them,
the factual allegations in the three (3) subject cases and even the annexes
attached to the complaint are practically one and the same; even the principal
parties are identical. Additionally, the causes of action in C-18337 are both
subject of judicial inquiry in C-18274 and C-18337, thereby rendering it
dismissible on the ground of litis pendentia or res judicata.[19]
Petitioner contends that its petition
was seasonably filed and perfected, and complied with the material date rule.[20] Further, said petition was filed in
accordance with the powers and duties of a mayor, as per the Charter of the
City of Caloocan,[21]
as well as under the Local Government Code (R.A. 7160), and thus needs no
authority from the Sanggunian in order to institute actions or suits on behalf
of the city.[22]
The petition must be denied.
The main question before us is the
propriety of the dismissal of Civil Case No. C-18337 on the ground of
forum-shopping. However, before dealing
with this issue, the Court shall first resolve the dispute regarding the
authority of a mayor to file cases on behalf of his city.
Sec. 455 of the Local Government Code
provides, among others, the powers and duties of a city mayor, thus:
Sec. 455. Chief Executive: Powers, Duties and Compensation.- (a) The city mayor, as the chief executive of the city government, shall exercise such powers and perform such duties and functions as provided by this Code and other laws.
(b) For efficient, effective, and economical governance the purpose of which is the general welfare of the city and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of this Code, the city mayor shall:
(1) xxx;
(3) Initiate and maximize the generation of resources and revenues, and apply the same to the implementation of development plans, program objectives and priorities as provided for under Section 18 of this Code, particularly those resources and revenues programmed for agro-industrial development and countryside growth and progress and, relative thereto shall:
xxx
(ix) Institute or cause to be instituted administrative or judicial proceedings for violation of ordinances in the collection of taxes, fees or charges, and for the recovery of funds and property; and cause the city to be defended against all suits to ensure that its interests, resources and rights shall be adequately protected.
xxx. (emphasis supplied)
Meanwhile, Section 9 of the Charter
of the City of
Section
9. General powers and duties of the Mayor. - The Mayor shall have immediate
control over the executive and administrative functions of the different
departments of the city, subject to the supervision of the President of the
xxx
(d) To cause to be instituted judicial proceedings to
recover property and funds of the city wherever found, to cause to be defended
all suits against the city, and otherwise to protect the interests of the city;
xxx.[23]
From the foregoing, it is
clear that the mayor has the authority to file suits “for the recovery of funds
and property” on behalf of the city, even without the prior authorization from
the Sanggunian. This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that nowhere in the
enumerated powers and duties of the Sanggunian[24]
can one find the requirement of such prior authorization in favor of the mayor
for the purpose of filing suits on behalf of the city. Civil Case No. C-18308 was filed by Malonzo
to enjoin the registration of what he deemed to be an anomalous deed of sale,
while Civil Case No. C-18337 was instituted to annul the Deed of Absolute Sale
and to cancel the title issued to Gotesco.
Obviously, these suits were filed, initially to preserve, and
subsequently to recover, the property subject of the said suits, to protect the
interests of the City of
However, being the proper
party to file such suits, the mayor must necessarily be the one to sign the
certification against forum-shopping, and not the City Legal Officer, who,
despite being an official of the City, was merely its counsel and not a party
to the case. Thus, the Court of Appeals
was correct in holding that the certification against forum-shopping in Civil
Case No. C-18337 is defective for having been signed by the City Legal Officer
and not by Malonzo. This factor alone
could well have led to the dismissal of Civil Case No. C-18337.[25] However, an even more compelling reason
dictates that Civil Case No. C-18337 must be dismissed at all events. This is
forum-shopping.
There is forum-shopping where a
litigant sues the same party against whom another action or actions for the
alleged violation of the same right and the enforcement of the same relief
is/are still pending. The defense of litis pendentia in one case
is a bar to the other/others; and, a final judgment is one that would
constitute res judicata and thus would cause the dismissal of the rest.[26] For litis pendentia to be a ground for
the dismissal of an action, the following requisites must concur: (a) identity
of parties, or at least such parties who represent the same interests in both
actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief
being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity with respect to the two
preceding particulars in the two cases is such that any judgment that may be
rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would
amount to res judicata in the other case.[27]
Civil Case No. C-18308,[28]
entitled “City of
The Court finds that the cases
involve the same principal parties, to wit: the City of
There is identity of causes of action if the
same evidence will sustain the second action. The principle applies even
if the relief sought in the two cases may be different. [33]
Civil Cases Nos. C-18337 and C-18308 are based on the same set of facts, that
is, the failure to execute an Amended Deed of Sale pursuant to City Ordinance
No. 068. On the other hand, Civil Cases
Nos. 18308 and 18274 question the nature of, and the procedure undertaken in
the transfer of ownership of the subject land.
Basically, the same set of evidence will have to be presented to support
the causes of action in the three (3) cases, which as indicated earlier is
characterized by singularity. Thus, a finding in one will sustain a finding in
the other. The causes of action in Civil
Case No. C-18337 being similarly subject of judicial inquiry in Civil Cases Nos. C-18274 and C-18337, Civil Case
No. C-18337 is dismissible on the
ground of litis pendentia.
Moreover, the aforesaid cases are intimately related and/or intertwined
with one another such that the judgment that may be rendered in one, regardless
of which party would be successful, would amount to res judicata in the
other.
Litigants are reminded
that parties are not allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in two different
fora. Filing multiple petitions or
complaints constitutes abuse of court processes, which tends to degrade the
administration of justice, wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial procedure, and
adds to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts.[34] Litigants, no matter how noble their intentions
for filing such suits, and no matter their zeal in pursuing their suits, are
not excused from the coverage of the rule on forum-shopping.
One last note. The adjudication of this case is without
prejudice to the resolution of the issues in the consignation case, Civil Case
No. C-18274, if not yet resolved already.
WHEREFORE, the petition
is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1]Penned by Associate Justice Bernardo LL. Salas, with Presiding Justice Salome A. Montoya and Associate Justice Mariano M. Umali, concurring.
[4]
[5]Entitled “Gotesco Investments, Inc. v. Hon. Reynaldo O. Malonzo and Carlo V. Santos.”
[6]Resolution
dated
[8]Entitled “City of Caloocan represented by the Honorable City Mayor Reynaldo O. Malonzo, v. Hon. Reynaldo Y. Maulit, in his capacity as Administrator of the Land Registration Authority, Atty. Yolanda Alfonso, in her capacity as Register of Deeds of Caloocan City, and Gotesco Investments, Inc. represented by Jose Go, President, and Macario A. Asistio III, in his capacity as former City Mayor of Caloocan City” and the named vendor in the Absolute Deed of Sale dated 06 September 1990.
[9]Entitled
“City of
[21]Section 9. xxx
(d) To cause to be instituted judicial proceedings to recover property and funds of the city wherever found, to cause to be defended all suits against the city, and otherwise to protect the interests of the city; . . .
[25]Sec. 5, Rule 7 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure provides that failure to comply with the requirements on the certification against forum-shopping shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing.
[28]For Prohibition with Application for Preliminary Injunction and Prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order.