THIRD
DIVISION
|
FIDEL O. CHUA and FILIDEN REALTY AND
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Petitioners, - versus
- METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY,
ATTY. ROMUALDO CELESTRA, ATTY. ANTONIO V. VIRAY, ATTY. RAMON MIRANDA and
ATTY. POMPEYO MAYNIGO, Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 182311 Present: CARPIO
MORALES,** CHICO-NAZARIO,*** Acting Chairperson, VELASCO,
JR., and NACHURA, JJ. Promulgated: August 19, 2009 |
x - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D
E C I S I O N
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
This is a
Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision,[1]
dated 31 January 2008, later upheld in a Resolution[2]
dated 28 March 2008, both rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 88087. The Court of Appeals, in its assailed
Decision, affirmed the Order[3]
dated 3 July 2006 of Branch 258 of the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City
(RTC-Branch 258), dismissing the action for damages, docketed as Civil Case No. CV-05-0402, filed by
petitioners Fidel O. Chua (Chua) and Filiden Realty and Development Corporation
(Filiden), on the ground of forum shopping.
Petitioner Chua is president of co-petitioner Filiden, a
domestic corporation, engaged in the realty business.[4] Respondent Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. (respondent
Metrobank) is a domestic
corporation and a duly licensed banking institution.[5]
Sometime in 1988, petitioners obtained from respondent
Metrobank a loan of P4,000,000.00, which was secured by a real estate
mortgage (REM) on parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificates of Title
(TCTs) No. (108020)1148, No. 93919, and No. 125185, registered in petitioner
Chua’s name (subject properties).[6] Since the value of the collateral was more
than the loan, petitioners were given an open credit line for future loans. On
Having failed to fully pay their obligations, petitioners
entered into a Debt Settlement Agreement[8]
with respondent Metrobank on P79,650,000.00, plus unpaid interest of P7,898,309.02,
and penalty charges of P552,784.96.
Amortization payments were to be made in accordance with the schedule
attached to the agreement.
In a letter[9]
dated P103,450,391 as of
When petitioners still failed to pay their loans, respondent
Metrobank sought to extra-judicially foreclose the REM constituted on the
subject properties. Upon a verified
Petition for Foreclosure filed by respondent Metrobank on 25 April 2001, respondent
Atty. Romualdo Celestra (Atty. Celestra) issued a Notice of Sale dated 26 April
2001, wherein the mortgage debt was set at P88,101,093.98, excluding
unpaid interest and penalties (to be computed from 14 September 1999),
attorney’s fees, legal fees, and other expenses for the foreclosure and
sale. The auction sale was scheduled on
On 28 May 2001, petitioner Chua, in his personal capacity and
acting on behalf of petitioner Filiden, filed before Branch 257 of the Regional
Trial Court of Parañaque (RTC-Branch 257), a Complaint for Injunction with
Prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), Preliminary
Injunction and Damages,[12]
against respondents Atty. Celestra, docketed as Civil Case No. CV-01-0207.
Upon the motion of petitioners, RTC-Branch 257 issued a TRO enjoining respondents
Metrobank and Atty. Celestra from conducting the auction sale of the mortgaged
properties on
After the expiration of the TRO on
On
12-E. There was actually no auction sale conducted by [herein respondent] Atty. Celestra on November 8, 2001 and the CERTIFICATE OF SALE (Annex “K-2”) is therefore a FALSIFIED DOCUMENT and for which the appropriate criminal complaint for falsification of official/public document will be filed against the said [respondent] Celestra and the responsible officers of [herein respondent] Metrobank, in due time;
12-F. But even granting that an auction sale was actually conducted and that the said Certificate of Sale is not a falsified document, the same document is a nullity simply because the auction sale was done in disobedience to a lawful order of this Court and that therefore the auction sale proceeding is null and void ab initio.[17]
Petitioners additionally prayed in their Amended Complaint for
the award of damages given the abuse of power of respondent Metrobank in the
preparation, execution, and implementation of the Debt Settlement Agreement with
petitioners; the bad faith of respondent Metrobank in offering the subject
properties at a price much lower than its assessed fair market value; and the gross
violation by respondents Metrobank and Atty. Celestra of the injunction.
Petitioners also sought, in their Amended Complaint, the
issuance of a TRO or a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin respondent Atty.
Celestra and all other persons from proceeding with the foreclosure sale, on
the premise that no auction sale was actually held on
In an Order dated
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
On
On P70,000,000.00 from the intended sale.[21]
Petitioners filed with RTC-Branch 195 a Motion to Consolidate[22]
dated
2. The above-captioned case is a complaint for damages as a result of the [herein respondents’] conspiracy to make it appear as if there was an auction sale conducted on November 8, 2001 when in fact there was none. The properties subject of the said auction sale are the same properties subject of Civil Case No. 01-0207.
3. Since the subject matter of both cases are the same properties and the parties of both cases are almost the same, and both cases have the same central issue of whether there was an auction sale, then necessarily, both cases should be consolidated.
On
In an Order dated
After the
two cases were consolidated, respondents filed two motions before RTC-Branch
258: (1) Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated
It is, therefore, the honest belief of the Court that since there is identity of parties and the rights asserted, the allegations of the defendant are found meritorious and with legal basis, hence, the motion is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED due to forum shopping.
As regards the second motion, the same has already been mooted by the dismissal of this case.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the defendants whereby this case is DISMISSED due to forum shopping and the Manifestation and Motion likewise filed by the defendants has already been MOOTED by the said dismissal.
From the
foregoing Order of RTC-Branch 258, petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Court of Appeals,
docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 88087.
In a
Decision dated
All told, the dismissal by the RTC-Br. 258 of the “second” case, Civil Case No. CV-05-0402, on the ground of forum shopping should be upheld as it is supported by law and jurisprudence.
WHEREFORE, the assailed order is AFFIRMED. Costs against the [herein petitioners].
Petitioners
filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the afore-mentioned Decision, which the
Court of Appeals denied in a Resolution dated
Hence, the
present Petition, in which the following issues are raised[31]:
I
WHETHER OR NOT
THE “FIRST” AND THE “SECOND” CASES HAVE THE SAME ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE, I.E., TO
HAVE THE AUCTION
II
WHETHER OR NOT THE OUTCOME OF THE “FIRST” CASE WOULD AFFECT THE “SECOND” CASE.
The only issue that needs to be
determined in this case is whether or not successively filing Civil Case No.
CV-01-0207 and Civil Case No. CV-05-0402 amounts to forum shopping.
The
Court answers in the affirmative.
The proscription against forum
shopping is found in Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Court, which
provides that:
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 that 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. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitutes willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.
Forum shopping exists when a party repeatedly
avails himself 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.[32]
Ultimately, what is truly important
in determining whether forum shopping exists or not is the vexation caused the
courts and party-litigant by a party who asks different courts to rule on the
same or related causes and/or to 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 issue.[33]
Forum shopping can be committed in
three ways: (1) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and
with the same prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet (where the
ground for dismissal is litis pendentia);
(2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same
prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved (where the ground for
dismissal is res judicata); and (3)
filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action, but with different
prayers (splitting of causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also
either litis pendentia or res judicata).[34]
In the present case, there is no
dispute that petitioners failed to state in the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping,
attached to their Verified Complaint in Civil Case No. CV-05-0402 before
RTC-Branch 195, the
existence of Civil Case No. CV-01-0207 pending before RTC-Branch 258. Nevertheless, petitioners insist that they
are not guilty of forum shopping, since (1) the two cases do not have the same
ultimate objective – Civil Case No. CV-01-0207 seeks the annulment of the
Petitioners committed forum shopping
by filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action, although with
different prayers.
Sections 3 and 4, Rule 2 of the Rules
of Court proscribe the splitting of a single cause of action:
Section 3. A party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action.
Section 4. Splitting a single cause of action; effect of.—If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others.
Forum shopping occurs although the
actions seem to be different, when it can be seen that there is a splitting of
a cause of action. [35] A cause of action is understood to be the
delict or wrongful act or omission committed by the defendant in violation of
the primary rights of the plaintiff. It
is true that a single act or omission can violate various rights at the same
time, as when the act constitutes juridically a violation of several separate
and distinct legal obligations. However,
where there is only one delict or wrong, there is but a single cause of action
regardless of the number of rights that may have been violated belonging to one
person.[36]
Petitioners would like to make it
appear that Civil Case No. CV-01-0207 was solely concerned with the
nullification of the auction sale and certification of sale, while Civil Case
No. CV-05-0402 was a totally separate claim for damages. Yet, a review of the records reveals that
petitioners also included an explicit claim for damages in their Amended Complaint[37]
in Civil Case No. CV-01-0207, to wit:
20-A. The abovementioned acts of [herein respondents] Metrobank and Atty. Celestra are in gross violation of the injunction made under Article 19 of the Civil Code, thereby entitling the [herein petitioners] to recover damages from the said [respondents] in such amount as may be awarded by the Court. (Emphasis ours.)
The “abovementioned acts” on which
petitioners anchored their claim to recover damages were described in the
immediately preceding paragraph in the same Amended Complaint, as follows [38]:
20. To reiterate, the [herein respondent] is fully aware that the assessed fair market value of the real properties they seek to foreclose and sell at public auction yet they have knowingly offered the said properties for sale at the amount of EIGHTY EIGHT MILLION ONE HUNDRED ONE THOUSAND NINETY THREE PESOS AND 98/100 (PhP88,101,093.98), obviously because they know that the [petitioners] or any other third person would not be able to seasonably raise the said amount and that said [respondent] Bank would be the winner by default at the said sale at public auction.
Petitioners averred in their Amended Complaint
in Civil Case No. CV-01-0207 that the assessed fair market value of the subject properties was P176,117,000.00.[39]
The Court
observes that the damages being claimed by petitioners in their Complaint in Civil Case
No. CV-05-0402 were also occasioned by the supposedly fictitious
24. The acts of [herein respondents] in making it appear that there was an auction sale conducted on 8 November 2001 and the subsequent execution of the fictitious Certificate of Sale is TORTIOUS, which entitles the [herein petitioners] to file this instant action under the principles of Human Relations, more particularly Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code which provide that:
x x x x
25. As a result of the aforesaid acts of the [respondents],
[petitioner’s] buyers of the mortgaged properties had lost their interest
anymore (sic) in buying the said mortgaged properties for not less than P175,000,000.00
as per appraisal report of the Philippine Appraisal Co., Inc., a copy of which
is hereto attached as Annex “R” and made an integral part hereof;
26. The
aborted sale of the [petitioner’s] mortgaged properties for the said amount of
not less than P175,000,000.00 could have paid off [petitioners’] loan
obligation with [respondent] Metrobank for the principal amount of P79,650,000.00
or even the contested restructured amount of P103,450,391.84 (as stated
in the petition for foreclosure), which would have thus enabled the plaintiff
to realize a net amount of not less than SEVENTY MILLION PESOS, more or less;
27. By reason of the aforesaid acts of [respondents], [petitioners] suffered and will continue to suffer actual or compensatory, moral and exemplary or corrective damages, the nature, extent and amount of compensation of which will (sic) proven during the trial but not less than SEVENTY MILLION PESOS.
There is no
question that the claims of petitioners for damages in Civil Case No.
CV-01-0207 and Civil Case No. CV-05-0402 are premised on the same cause of
action, i.e., the purportedly
wrongful conduct of respondents in connection with the foreclosure sale of the
subject properties.
At first
glance, said claims for damages may appear different. In Civil Case No. CV-01-0207, the damages
purportedly arose from the bad faith of respondents in offering the subject
properties at the auction sale at a price much lower than the assessed fair
market value of the said properties, said to be P176,117,000.00. On
the other hand, the damages in Civil Case No. CV-05-0402, allegedly resulted
from the backing out of prospective buyers, who had initially offered to buy
the subject properties for “not less than P175,000,000.00,”
because respondents made it appear that the said properties were already sold
at the auction sale. Yet, it is worthy
to note that petitioners quoted closely similar values for the subject
properties in both cases, against which they measured the damages they
supposedly suffered. Evidently, this is
due to the fact that petitioners actually based the said values on the single appraisal
report of the Philippine Appraisal Company on the subject properties. Even though petitioners did not specify in their
Amended Complaint in Civil Case No. CV-01-0207 the exact amount of damages they
were seeking to recover, leaving the same to the determination of the trial court,
and petitioners expressly prayed that they be awarded damages of not less than P70,000,000.00
in their Complaint in Civil Case No. CV-05-0402, petitioners cannot deny that
all their claims for damages arose from what they averred was a fictitious
public auction sale of the subject properties.
Petitioners’ contention that the outcome of
Civil Case No. CV-01-0207 will not determine that of Civil Case No. CV-05-0402
does not justify the filing of separate cases.
Even if it were assumed that the two cases contain two separate
remedies that are both available to petitioners, these two remedies that arose
from one wrongful act cannot be pursued in two different cases. The rule against splitting a cause of
action is intended to prevent repeated litigation between the same parties in
regard to the same subject of controversy, to protect the defendant from
unnecessary vexation; and to avoid the costs and expenses incident to numerous
suits. It comes from the old maxim nemo debet bis vexari, pro una et eadem causa
(no man shall be twice vexed for one and the same cause).[41]
Moreover, petitioners admitted in their Motion to Consolidate[42]
dated
2. The above-captioned case is a complaint for damages as a result of the [herein respondents’] conspiracy to make it appear as if there was an auction sale conducted on November 8, 2001 when in fact there was none. The properties subject of the said auction sale are the same properties subject of Civil Case No. 01-0207.
3. Since the subject matter of both cases are the same properties and the parties of both cases are almost the same, and both cases have the same central issue of whether there was an auction sale, then necessarily, both cases should be consolidated.
If the forum shopping is not
considered willful and deliberate, the subsequent case shall be dismissed without prejudice, on the ground of
either litis pendentia or res judicata. However, if the forum shopping is willful and
deliberate, both (or all, if there are more than two) actions shall be
dismissed with prejudice..[43] In this case, petitioners did not
deliberately file Civil Case No. CV-05-0402 for the purpose of seeking a favorable decision in
another forum. Otherwise, they would not
have moved for the consolidation of both cases.
Thus, only Civil Case No. CV-05-0402 is dismissed and the hearing of
Civil Case No. CV-01-0207 before RTC-Branch 258 will be continued.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice Acting Chairperson |
WE
CONCUR:
RENATO C.
CORONA
Associate Justice
CONCHITA CARPIO
MORALES
Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J.
VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
|
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
Acting 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 were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
* Associate
Justice Renato C. Corona was designated to sit as additional member replacing
Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta per Raffle dated
** Per
Special Order No. 679 dated
*** Per
Special Order No. 681 dated
[1] Penned
by Associate Justice Normandie Pizarro with Associate Justices Edgardo P. Cruz
and Fernanda Lampas Peralta, concurring. Rollo,
pp. 39-52.
[2]
[3] Penned by Judge Raul E. de Leon ; CA rollo, pp. 35-36.
[4] Rollo, p. 429.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23] Records,
pp. 508-512.
[24] Rollo, p. 339.
[25] Records, pp. 779-781 and 807-811.
[26] Rollo, pp. 340-341.
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30] Id at 10-11.
[31]
[32] Feliciano v. Villasin, G.R. No. 174929, 27 June 2008, 556 SCRA 348,
370; Cruz v. Caraos, G.R. No. 138208,
23 April 2007, 521 SCRA 510, 521; SK
Realty, Inc. v. Uy, G.R. No. 144282, 8 June 2004, 431 SCRA 239, 246.
[33] Feliciano v. Villasin, id. at 372; Llamzon v. Logronio, G.R. No. 167745,
[34] Collantes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
169604, 6 March 2007, 517 SCRA 561, 569; Ao-As
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128464, 20 June 2006, 491 SCRA 339, 354.
[35]
[36] Joseph v. Bautista, G.R. No. 41423,
[37] Rollo, pp. 97- 98.
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41] Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. v. Icarangal,
68 Phil 287, 293 (1939).
[42] Rollo, pp. 455-456.
[43] Collantes v. Court of Appeals, supra
note 34 at 569; Ao-As v. Court of Appeals,
supra note 34 at 355-356.