J & N SHIPPING LINES, INC.,
Petitioner, -
versus - TECHNOMARINE CO., LTD. and PHILIPPINE NIPPON KYOEI
CORPORATION, Respondents.
|
G.R. No. 157629
Present: PUNO, c.j., Chairperson, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
AZCUNA, and GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: March
22, 2007 |
x ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
|
|
|
D E C I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: |
|
|
|
|
For
our resolution is the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari[1]
seeking to reverse the Decision[2]
dated
The facts are:
Technomarine
Co., Ltd. (Technomarine), respondent, is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of
On October 28, 1998, by way of a
Sales Agreement,[3]
Technomarine, through Philippine Nippon, sold to ASKA Shipping Corporation
(ASKA) the vessel Ferry Tsuyoshi
(later renamed ASKA Shuttle) for US$300,000.00
or P12 million.
Pursuant to the agreement, ASKA will
mortgage to Philippine Nippon the vessel to secure the payment of the purchase
price and will execute the corresponding mortgage contract. Thereafter, ASKA, through its President, Gina
Kozasa, issued several postdated checks (in pesos and dollars) in favor of
Philippine Nippon.
Meantime,
ASKA, after taking possession of the vessel, refused to execute the mortgage
contract. When the postdated checks fell
due, they were dishonored. As a result,
on
Surprisingly,
on P4 million, as shown by a Deed of
Absolute Sale.[4] On
Upon
learning that ASKA sold the vessel to petitioner J & N, respondents Philippine
Nippon and Technomarine filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 24,
For
their part, petitioner and ASKA filed two separate motions to dismiss the
complaint. In an Order dated
In
dismissing the complaint, the RTC, Branch 24,[5]
held:
It
is not disputed that when the vessel, subject of the suit, was sold by
defendant ASKA to defendant J & N, with the exception of a writ of
preliminary attachment issued against the vessel, the same was free from all
liens and encumbrances. And said
attachment was even dissolved with the payment of the claim of the attaching
creditor by defendant J & N.
A
cursory reading of the sales agreement, Annex “A” of the amended complaint,
between Techno Marine and defendant ASKA does not at all contain any
stipulation that notwithstanding the terms of payment, ownership of the vessel
should be retained by the seller until full payment is made. Thus, even with the partial payments made,
ownership was likewise transferred to defendant ASKA.
On
this score alone, the suit for replevin must necessarily fail. As held in Distilleria Washington, Inc. v.
Court of Appeals (263 SCRA 303), “replevin is a possessory in action, the
gist of which focuses on the right of possession that in turn is dependent on a
legal basis that, not infrequently, looks to the ownership of the object ought
to the replevined.” And from the facts
adduced, ownership is neither within the plaintiffs nor with defendant ASKA but
with defendant J & N.
The
only way for plaintiffs to enforce their claim against defendant J & N is
if there was a chattel mortgage over the vessel. A mere agreement between plaintiffs and
defendant ASKA creating a lien over the chattel would not create in favor of
the plaintiffs any lien that can be enforced against third parties. Thus, although plaintiff Technomarine has not
been fully paid, its lien over the vessel remained only so long as it was in
possession thereof (Art. 1527, Civil Code).
When plaintiff gave up possession with the delivery of the vessel, the
lien created by law was automatically extinguished (Art. 1529, Civil Code).
As
against defendant J & N, therefore, plaintiffs have no cause of
action. As against defendant ASKA,
the more appropriate suit would be an action for damages on account of ASKA’s
failure to execute the mortgage as stipulated in the sales agreement since
neither annulment of sale nor specific performance is now feasible.
Respondents
interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals.
Eventually, they filed a motion
to withdraw the appeal. This was granted
in a Resolution dated
It appears, however, that the reason
why respondents withdrew their appeal was because earlier, they filed with the
RTC, Branch 37,
On P24 million, the corresponding warrant of seizure of the
vessel was implemented by the sheriff.
On
On
July 11, 2002, the RTC, Branch 37, Manila, acting on petitioner’s motion,
dismissed respondents’ complaint in Civil Case No. 02-103850 on the ground of
forum shopping and ordered the return of the vessel to petitioner.
On
In
its assailed Decision dated October 18, 2002, the Court of Appeals granted
respondents’ petition for prohibition, set aside the July 11, 2002 Order of the
RTC, Branch 37, and reinstated the complaint in Civil Case No. 02-103850. The appellate court held that in implementing
the Order of
Petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration but it was denied by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution
dated
Hence,
the present petition.
The
issues for our determination are:
1.
Whether respondents resorted to forum shopping when they filed a second
complaint (Civil Case No. 02-103850) with the RTC, Branch 37,
2.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting respondents’ petition for
prohibition and declaring that in enforcing the Order dated
On the first issue, we hold that
respondents engaged in forum shopping.
It may be recalled that they filed with the RTC, Branch 24 the first
complaint against petitioner J & N, ASKA and MARINA for annulment of sale
and damages. The case was
dismissed. Respondents then appealed to
the Court of Appeals but later, they withdrew their appeal because prior
thereto, they filed a similar complaint with the RTC, Branch 37. These two cases involve identity of parties,
rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought.
Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended, provides:
SEC. 5. Certification against forum
shopping. – The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in
the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in
a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a)
that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving
the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the
best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if
there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the
present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or
similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report the fact
within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or
initiatory pleading has been filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing
requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other
initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without
prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. x x x.
In filing the second complaint,
respondents did not certify under oath therein that they have not filed any
complaint involving the same issues with any court. Pursuant to the above provision, the second
complaint was dismissible on the ground of forum shopping. Engaging in forum shopping cannot be
countenanced as it degrades the administration of justice and adds to the
already congested court dockets.[6] In SK
Realty, Inc., et al. v. Uy,[7]
we held:
A
party is guilty of forum shopping where he repetitively
availed of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or
successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and
all raising substantially the same issues either pending in, or already
resolved adversely by some other court. (Emphasis supplied)
Consequently, Presiding Judge
Relative to the second issue, it bears
emphasis that in its Decision in the first case (Civil Case No. 01-101763), the
RTC, Branch 24 held among others, that petitioner J & N is the owner of the
vessel; and that respondents’ appropriate suit against ASKA is an action for
damages. Clearly, the issues raised by
the parties have been fully ventilated. As
earlier mentioned, respondents interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals but
later withdrew the same. The Resolution of
the appellate court granting the motion became final and executory on
The doctrine of res judicata provides
that a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent
jurisdiction (such as the RTC, Branch 24) is conclusive as to the rights of the
parties and their privies and constitutes an absolute bar to subsequent action
involving the same claim, demand, or cause of action.[8] Here, the final judgment on the merits refers
to the final and executory Decision rendered by the RTC, Branch 24; while the
subsequent action pertains to the second case, Civil Case No. 02-103850 in
Branch 37.
As discussed earlier, respondents
resorted to forum shopping when they filed the second case (Civil Case No.
02-103850). Thus, the Presiding Judge of
Branch 37 correctly dismissed the complaint.
Obviously, respondents’ petition for prohibition must fail since the
dismissal of the complaint was not tainted with grave abuse of discretion. Under
Section 2, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended,
prohibition lies when the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board,
office or person, whether judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions,
are without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. The assailed
Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 71701 are REVERSED. The Order dated
SO
ORDERED.
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief
Justice Chairperson |
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
|
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Filed under Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria (retired) and concurred in by Associate Justice Martin Villarama, Jr. and Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino.
[3] Annex “A” of the petition, rollo, pp. 42-43.
[4] Annex “I” of the petition, id., pp. 54-55.
[5] Presided by Judge Antonio M. Eugenio, Jr.
[6] Young v. Keng Seng, G.R.
No. 143464,
[7] SK Realty, Inc. v. Uy, G.R. No. 144282, June 8, 2004, 431 SCRA 239, citing Binan Steel Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 391 SCRA 90 (2002).
[8] Lanuza v. Court of Appeals, et
al., G.R. No. 131394, March 28, 2005, 454 SCRA 54.