FIRST DIVISION
|
HARRY M. TANINGCO, CECILIA TANINGCO, ROSEMARIE ABORKA, FULGENCIA
LIPAR, FE VILLAREAL-REPIEDAD,
AGUINALDO REPIEDAD, MARY
LOU REPIEDAD and COMOPHI REPIEDAD,
Petitioners, - versus - LILIA M. TANINGCO, DENNIS M. TANINGCO, JOSE M. TANINGCO,
JR., ANDREW M. TANINGCO and JAMES M. TANINGCO,
Respondents. |
G.R. No. 153481 Present: PUNO, C.J., Chairperson,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, AZCUNA, and GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: August 10, 2007 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
GARCIA,
J.:
Sought to be reversed and set aside via this petition for review on certiorari
is the Decision[1]
dated 30 April 2002 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 65282 which ANNULLED
the following Orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kalibo, Aklan, Branch
8 (Kalibo court, for brevity), in
its (SEC) Civil Case No. 6262, to wit:
a) Order dated
b) Order dated
c) Order dated
d) Order dated
and DISMISSED said Civil Case No. 6262 for
forum shopping.
The pertinent undisputed facts follow:
On
22 January 2001, on the occasion of the annual stockholders’ meeting of the
Rural Bank of Banga (Aklan) (hereinafter
simply referred to as the bank),
respondents Dennis M. Taningco, Jose M. Taningco, Jr., Andrew M. Taningco and James
M. Taningco got involved in an altercation with their brother, herein petitioner
Harry M. Taningco (Harry, for brevity) relative
to the fifty-one percent (51%) majority shares of stocks of the bank, which were
transferred to Harry by virtue of Deeds of Sale and Memorandum of Agreement
between Harry and their parents, namely, respondent Lilia M. Taningco and the
latter’s husband, Jose M. Taningco. The said deeds of sale are now subject of a
case filed by the parents on 31 January 2001 before the RTC of Quezon City (QC
court, for brevity), thereat docketed as Civil Case No. Q-01-43250, entitled “Spouses Jose M. Taningco and Lilia M. Taningco v. Spouses Harry and
Cecilia Taningco,” seeking the declaration of nullity of the aforesaid
deeds of sale and the return of the disputed shares of stock of the bank and in
another bank owned by the parents, the Rural Bank of Sta. Barbara (
Harry
immediately left, even before the said annual stockholders’ meeting could start
on that day. Respondents, however, proceeded with the election of a new board
of directors of the bank, voting themselves as the new corporate directors and
officers thereof. Respondents, thereafter, placed Harry on preventive
suspension and required him to explain why he should not be dismissed as
manager of the bank.
On
On
On
In
an Order dated 14 March 2001, the Kalibo court, in (SEC) Civil Case No. 6262,
issued an Urgent TRO, ordering the respondents, as defendants in that case, and
any and all persons acting for and in their behalves, “to cease and desist from
exercising corporate functions and from occupying the bank’s premises, maintaining
a status quo, by restoring the
operation of the bank to the petitioners for a duration of seventy-two (72)
hours from date hereof until all the parties are heard on notice in a summary
hearing to be conducted for that purpose.”
On
19 March 2001, respondents filed before the QC court their Opposition to petitioners’
application of 05 March 2001 for the issuance of a TRO, arguing that the four
(4) Deeds of Absolute Sale dated 19 August 2000 were simulated and falsified,
hence, null and void ab initio. Such
being the case, respondents argued that petitioners have not acquired ownership
over the fifty-one percent (51%) controlling shares of stock of the two (2)
rural banks, the same having been feloniously acquired and transferred. Respondents likewise contended
before the QC court that the
application for a TRO is unsubstantiated as it was based on Harry’s pure
hallucinations and fraudulent scheme.
Respondents further denied that they used armed guards when they took
over the operations of the bank (Rural Bank of Banga [Aklan]),
but instead, there was only a peaceful change of the security guards under the respondents’
direct supervision.
On
In
the meantime, the Kalibo court heard the application for TRO in the main case ([SEC]
Civil Case No. 6262). It was during the said hearing that the Kalibo court
discovered that a similar application for TRO was filed in the QC court by
Harry, based on the same facts and seeking the same relief asked of the Kalibo
court. Thus, in an Order dated
Petitioners
filed their Motion for Reconsideration
on the Order dated
On
6 April 2001, with the Kalibo court’s refusal to extend the 72-hour TRO, respondents
on their part filed a Motion for Restoration
averring that with the expiration of the 72-hour TRO granted by virtue of the
Order dated 14 March 2001, and the denial of the extension thereof, they (respondents)
should be restored as corporate directors/officers of the bank.
Also,
on the same date, the Kalibo court issued its Order of 6 April 2001,
which is the extended resolution it reserved to issue in its earlier Order of 2
April 2001, expounding on the reasons for the denial of respondents’ motion to
dismiss, ruling that there was no forum shopping because the issues raised in
the two (2) pending cases were unrelated to each other: the case before the Kalibo court, (SEC) Civil Case No.
6262, relates to the illegal exercise
of corporate acts by the respondents; while the other case before the QC court, Civil Case No. Q-01-43250, involves the issue of nullity of sale of the shares of stocks
of Jose M. Taningco and his wife, herein respondent Lilia M. Taningco, to
petitioners-spouses.
On
With
three incidents now pending before the Kalibo court, namely, (1)
petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of the 2 April 2001 Order insofar as it
denied to extend the 72-hour TRO; (2)
respondent Dennis’s motion for reconsideration and the supplement thereto; and (3) respondents’ motion for restoration,
the Kalibo court issued the Order
dated 30 April 2001: (1) denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration for having
become moot and academic by virtue of the lapse of the period within which a
TRO may be extended; (2) denying
respondent Dennis’s motion and supplemental motion for reconsideration of the
order denying the motion for the dismissal of (SEC) Civil Case No. 6262,
considering that a motion to dismiss is a prohibited pleading under Section 8
of Rule 1 of the Interim Rules on Intracorporate Controversies; and (3) concerning the motion for
restoration, deeming it wise and beneficial for the bank itself and for the
public in general, to create a Management Committee pursuant to Rule 9 of the
Interim Rules pending final determination of the issues in the main case.
The aforesaid Order of
Petitioners, in the meantime, also
filed with the Kalibo court a motion to declare the herein respondents, as defendants
in (SEC) Civil Case No. 6262, as in default.
On
Respondents forthwith elevated the
matter to the CA via a petition for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and
injunction with prayer for preliminary injunction and TRO under Rule 65,
thereat docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 65282.
In the herein assailed decision dated
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant
petition is GRANTED. The assailed Orders
dated
SO ORDERED.
Aggrieved, it was petitioners’ turn
to elevate the matter to this Court via the
present recourse on their submission that the CA erred:
I.
XXX IN FINDING THAT THE ELEMENTS OF LITIS PENDENTIA ARE
PRESENT IN CIVIL CASE NO.
Q-01-43250 PENDING BEFORE THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON
CITY IN RELATION TO CIVIL CASE NO. 6262 PENDING BEFORE
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF KALIBO, AKLAN.
II.
XXX IN DISMISSING CIVIL CASE NO. 6262 ON THE GROUND OF FORUM-SHOPPING.
III.
XXX
IN FINDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ISSUING
THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (TRO) AND IN NOT GRANTING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION
FOR RESTORATION AFTER THE LAPSE OF THE TRO.
The recourse is impressed with merit.
We do not agree with the CA that litis pendentia exists between Civil Case
No. Q-01-43250 (QC case) and (SEC) Civil Case No.
6262 (Kalibo case).
Litis pendentia
has three basic requisites:
1. Identity of parties, or at least such
parties as those representing the same interests in both actions;
2. Identity of rights asserted and reliefs
prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts; and
3. The identity with respect to the two
preceding particulars is such that any judgment that may be rendered in one case,
regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res adjudicata in the other.[3]
Although there is a semblance of identity
of parties in the two pending cases, it may be noted that the plaintiffs in the QC case
are only the parents, Jose and Lilia Taningco, suing defendants Harry and his wife, Cecilia, in the parents’ capacity as
the supposed vendors of the disputed shares of stocks not only of the Rural
Bank of Banga (Aklan) which is the bank involved in the Kalibo case, but also the shares of stock of the Rural Bank of
Sta. Barbara (Iloilo), in favor of Harry, whereas the plaintiffs in the Kalibo
case are the herein petitioners and the defendants are the stockholders
and officers of the Rural Bank of Banga (Aklan), all of whom, with the
exception of Lilia, are not parties in the QC
case and are not privy to the alleged sale of the disputed shares of stocks
of the two rural banks. Any apparent similarities
in the two cases end there because patently, the rights asserted as well as the
reliefs prayed for in the two cases are totally distinct from one another.
Absent the two first requisites of litis pendentia, the possibility of the
existence of the third becomes nil. While
judgment in the QC case may have
bearing in the outcome of the Kalibo case,
the Kalibo case is not outrightly
dismissible on account of an adjudication in the QC case.
Any adjudication in the QC case
simply becomes an evidentiary matter like any court judgment involving rights
of the parties that could affect the pending controversy in the Kalibo case. At best, any ruling that may be rendered in
the QC case could simply become the
law of the case between the parties insofar as the issue of ownership of shares is concerned. But until and unless the sale is declared
void by the QC court, the Kalibo court has no jurisdiction to rule on the
validity or regularity of the alleged sale of the shares of stock of the Rural
Bank of Banga (Aklan) in favor of Harry because the defendants in the Kalibo case, except for Lilia Taningco,
have no legal personality to assail such validity, not being privy to the
alleged contract of sale between Jose and Lilia Taningco, as vendors, and Harry,
as vendee.
Now, as regards the issue of forum
shopping, we have ruled that one of the tests for forum shopping is the
existence of litis pendentia. Expectedly, after having ruled out litis pendentia, the Court likewise
rules out the existence of forum shopping in the case at bar.
Forum shopping
exists when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a
favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another, or
when he institutes two or more actions
or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the gamble that one or the other
court would make a favorable disposition.
What
is truly important to consider in determining whether forum shopping exists or not
is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks
different courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related
causes and/or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting
decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issues.[4]
There can be no forum shopping when petitioners
filed the Kalibo case,
notwithstanding the pendency of the QC
case because the two cases are not grounded on the same cause of action. We examined the causes of action in the two
cases by going through the elements of a cause of action, namely:
1. a right in
favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is
created;
2. an obligation
on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and
3. an act or omission on the part of such
defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach
of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may
maintain an action for recovery of damages.[5]
|
|
QC case |
Kalibo case |
|
1. right in favor of the
plaintiff: |
Jose and Lilia Taningco’s ownership
rights over the shares of stock constituting 51% shares in the 2 rural banks. |
Harry’s right to exercise corporate
powers as stockholder of the rural bank representing 51% of outstanding
shares and his right to hold office as bank manager of the
Rural Bank of Banga (Aklan). |
|
2. obligation on the part
of the named defendant: |
Harry and his wife’s obligation to
recognize and respect said ownership rights of Jose and Lilia Taningco. |
Minority stockholder’s obligation to
recognize and respect said corporate rights of Harry. |
|
3. act or omission on the
part of such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff: |
Alleged execution of spurious
contracts of sale and memorandum of agreement transferring ownership of 51%
shares in the rural bank in favor of Harry and his wife. |
Alleged ouster of Harry and his wife
as corporate directors of the Rural Bank of Banga (Aklan) and of Harry as manager
thereof. |
From the foregoing
tabulation, it is clear that there is no identity of causes of action between
the cases pending before the QC and the Kalibo courts, a significant
circumstance which brings the cases out of the operative prohibition against
forum shopping.
As to the
propriety of the Kalibo court’s issuance of the TRO, the Court finds no cogent
reason to delve into the issue because of said TRO having already lapsed. The said court, however, is directed to
restore the parties to the status quo
prior to the issuance of the TRO in view of the expiration of the TRO and the non-issuance
of a writ of preliminary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs therein.
WHEREFORE, the instant
petition is GRANTED and
the CA’s Decision dated 30
April 2002 which dismissed (SEC) Civil
Case No. 6262 pending before the
Kalibo court is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The annulled orders of
the Kalibo court in the same case are
reinstated. The said court, however, is directed to issue an order restoring
the parties to the status quo ante the
issuance of the temporary restraining order.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
CANCIO C.
GARCIA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
Chairperson
|
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate
Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate
Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate
Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, I certify 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.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
[1] Rendered by its Third Division, Associate Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga, ponente, and the late Associate Justice Eubulo G. Verzola and (retired) Associate Justice Bernardo P. Abesamis, concurring; rollo, pp. 9-29.
[2] G.R. No. 112547,
[3] Philippine Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, Inc. v. Abiertas House of Friendship, Inc., G.R. No. 125571, July 22, 1998, 292 SCRA 785.
[4]
[5] Relucio v. Lopez, G.R. No. 138497,