Republic of the
Supreme
Court
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
|
SPOUSES DAISY
and SOCRATES M. AREVALO, Petitioners, - versus - PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK and THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS OF PARAAQUE CITY, Respondents. |
G. R. No. 193415 Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, BRION, PEREZ, SERENO, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: April 18, 2012 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
SERENO,
J.:
This is a Rule
45 Petition for Review, which seeks to reverse the Decision dated 24 March 2010[1]
and Resolution dated 05 August 2010[2]
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 110806. The CA affirmed the
trial courts Decision not to grant petitioners application for a writ of
preliminary injunction.
As
stated, this case involves the trial courts refusal to issue a writ of
preliminary injunction in favor of petitioner Spouses Daisy and Socrates M.
Arevalo (Spouses Arevalo) based on their failure to comply with Section 2 of the
Procedure in Extra-Judicial or Judicial Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgages (Procedure
on Foreclosure)[3]
issued by this Court. This procedure required them to pay twelve percent (12%) per
annum interest on the amount of the principal obligation, as stated in the
application for foreclosure sale, before an injunctive writ may issue against
the extra-judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage.[4]
We
deny the instant Petition for the following reasons: (1) the Petition is moot,
because the trial court has already dismissed the Complaint dated 07 April 2009 (the First Complaint),[5]
upon which petitioners application for the provisional remedy of preliminary
injunction was based; and (2) petitioners are guilty of forum-shopping.
The conflict between the parties arose from a Loan Agreement[6]
petitioners executed with respondent Planters Development Bank (Bank). Petitioners
obtained from respondent Bank a ₱2,100,000 loan secured by a mortgage on their
property situated in Muntinlupa. Due to their failure to pay the loaned amount,
the Bank undertook to extra-judicially foreclose the mortgage. The Clerk of
Court issued a Notice of Sheriffs Sale and set the auction sale on 21 and 28
April 2009.[7]
Petitioners thereafter filed the First Complaint
wherein they asked for the nullification of interests, penalties and other
charges, as well as for specific performance with an application for a
temporary restraining order (TRO) and writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin
the then impending auction sale of their Muntinlupa property. They alleged that
it was respondent Bank who breached its obligations under the loan agreement;
and that the auction sale was premature, arbitrary and confiscatory, as their
inability to pay the loan was caused and aggravated by the Banks illegal
schemes.[8]
During the hearing of petitioners
application for preliminary injunction, the trial court ruled that, as a
precondition for the issuance of the writ and pursuant to the Procedure on
Foreclosure, petitioners were directed to pay 12% per annum interest on the
principal obligation as stated in the application for foreclosure sale.
Otherwise, the writ shall not issue. [9]
The
trial court further ruled that the evidence in support of their application was
evidentiary in nature and should thus be presented during trial.[10]
Petitioner Spouses Arevalo sought to clarify the
trial courts Order,[11]
inquiring whether they should be required to pay 12% per annum interest. They
argue that the rule requiring the payment of 12% interest as a condition for
the issuance of an injunctive writ against an impending foreclosure sale was applicable
only when applicant alleges that the interest rate is unconscionable.[12]
According to petitioners, nowhere in the Complaint did they allege that the
interest charges were unconscionable.[13]
Instead, what they raised in the First Complaint as their principal cause of
action was the Banks deliberate withholding of loan releases on various
pretexts and the propriety of the acts of the Bank charging them with interests
and penalties due to the delay caused by the Bank itself.[14]
The trial court, however, affirmed its earlier ruling.[15]
Petitioners moved for reconsideration,[16]
but their motion was denied.[17]
Consequently, they did not pay the required interest; thus, no writ of
preliminary injunction was issued in their favor.
Aggrieved, petitioner Spouses Arevalo filed a Rule
65 Petition[18]
with the CA to assail the Orders of the trial court involving the non-issuance
of the injunctive writ.[19]
Meanwhile, proceedings for the First Complaint ensued
at the trial court. Acting on the Motion to Dismiss filed by respondent Bank, the
trial court granted the motion and dismissed the First Complaint for lack of
cause of action.[20] Petitioner
Spouses Arevalo then proceeded again to the CA to appeal[21]
the dismissal of the main case. The record does not reveal the status of the
case.
With regard to the Rule 65 Petition to the CA questioning
the non-issuance of the writ, respondent Bank filed its Comment[22]
thereon. Subsequently, the CA rendered the present assailed Decision dated 24
March 2010, affirming the applicability of Section 2 of the Procedure on
Foreclosure. It ruled that the trial court was correct in refusing to issue the
writ due to petitioners inexplicable failure and even stubborn refusal to pay
the accrued interest at 12% per annum.[23]
The CA held that the words used by petitioners in their First Complaint, such
as manifestly unjust, purely potestative condition, void ab initio, clearly
contravenes morals, good customs and public policy, whimsical, capricious
violation of the legal and inherent principles of mutuality of contracts, illegal,
invalid, unilateral impositionsall of which pertained to interest imposed by
the Bankundeniably meant that petitioners were challenging the interest for being
unconscionable, while opting to use other words of similar import.[24]
Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the CA
denied their motion.[25]
Aggrieved, they filed the instant Rule 45 Petition
to assail the Decision of the CA affirming the non-issuance of the injunctive
writ.
There are thus two (2) cases arising from similar
facts and circumstances; more particularly, the instant Rule 45 Petition and
the appeal of the dismissal of the main case with the CA.[26]
It appears on record also that on 12 November 2010, petitioners filed yet another
Complaint dated 11 November 2010[27]
(Second Complaint) with the trial court. This time, they prayed for the
nullification of the real estate mortgage, the extra-judicial foreclosure sale,
and the subsequent proceedings, with a prayer for preliminary injunction and
TRO.
With regard to the instant Rule 45 Petition, petitioners
assail the Decision and Resolution of the CA based on the following grounds:[28]
(1) they were deprived of the opportunity to present evidence on their
application for a writ of preliminary injunction; and (2) the CA erred when it required
them to pay 12% interest per annum based on Section 2 of the Procedure on
Foreclosure, when the core of their First Complaint was not excessiveness of
the interest but the Banks supposed breach of their obligations in the loan agreement.[29]
Respondent Bank, on the other hand, countered as
follows:[30]
(1) petitioner Spouses Arevalo were not denied due process, since they were
accorded several opportunities to be heard on their application for the
issuance of an injunctive writ; (2) the CA correctly required petitioners to
pay the interest; and (3) petitioner Spouses Arevalo were guilty of
forum-shopping when they filed their Second Complaint. For forum-shopping, respondent
Bank likewise moved to hold them in contempt,[31]
arguing that they had sought similar reliefs in their Second Complaint with the
trial court as in the present Petition.
Petitioners filed their Reply[32]
and Comment[33]
to the charges on contempt.
Based on the parties submissions, the
following issues are presented for the resolution of this Court:
1. Whether
the requirement to pay 12% interest per annum before the issuance of an
injunctive writ to enjoin an impending foreclosure sale is applicable to the instant case; and
2. Whether
petitioner Spouses Arevalo are guilty of forum-shopping and should consequently
be punished for contempt.
RULING
OF THE COURT
I.
The issue of the
applicability to this case of the requirement to pay 12% interest per annum before
the issuance of an injunctive writ to enjoin an impending foreclosure sale is
moot.
The Court rules that upon dismissal of
the First Complaint by the trial court on 27 October 2009,[34]
the issue of whether the writ of injunction should issue has become moot.
Although both parties failed to raise this particular argument in their
submissions, we deny the instant Petition on this ground.
A case becomes moot and
academic when there is no more actual controversy between the parties or useful
purpose that can be served in passing upon the merits.[35]
There remains no actual controversy in
the instant Petition because the First Complaint has already been dismissed by
the trial court. Upon its dismissal, the question of the non-issuance of a writ
of preliminary injunction necessarily died with it.
A writ of preliminary injunction is a
provisional remedy. It is auxiliary to, an adjunct of, and subject to the
outcome of the main case.[36]
Thus, a writ of preliminary injunction is deemed lifted upon dismissal of the
main case, any appeal therefrom notwithstanding,[37]
as this Court emphasized in Buyco v.
Baraquia[38]
from which we quote:
The writ is provisional because
it constitutes a temporary measure availed of during the pendency of the action
and it is ancillary because it is a mere incident in and is dependent upon the
result of the main action.
It
is well-settled that the sole object of a preliminary injunction, whether prohibitory
or mandatory, is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be
heard. It is usually granted when it is made to appear that there is a
substantial controversy between the parties and one of them is committing an
act or threatening the immediate commission of an act that will cause
irreparable injury or destroy the status quo of the controversy before a full
hearing can be had on the merits of the case.
x x x x x x x x x
The present case having been
heard and found dismissible as it was in fact dismissed, the writ of
preliminary injunction is deemed lifted, its purpose as a provisional remedy
having been served, the appeal therefrom notwithstanding.
Unionbank v. Court of Appeals enlightens:
xxx
a dismissal, discontinuance or non-suit
of an action in which a restraining order or temporary injunction has been
granted operates as a dissolution of the restraining order or temporary
injunction, regardless of whether the period for filing a motion for
reconsideration of the order dismissing the case or appeal therefrom has
expired. The rationale therefor is that
even in cases where an appeal is taken from a judgment dismissing an action on
the merits, the appeal does not suspend the judgment, hence the general rule
applies that a temporary injunction terminates automatically on the dismissal
of the action. (Emphases supplied.)[39]
There will be no practical value in
resolving the question of the non-issuance of an injunctive writ in this case. Setting
aside the assailed Orders is manifestly pointless, considering that the First Complaint
itself has already been dismissed, and there is nothing left to enjoin. The
reversal of the assailed Orders would have a practical effect only if the
dismissal were set aside and the First Complaint reinstated.[40]
In this case, however, petitioner Spouses Arevalo admitted to the impossibility
of the reinstatement of the First Complaint when they filed their Second
Complaint.[41]
Even petitioners plea that this Court
give due course to the Petition for a ruling on the proper application of the Procedure
on Foreclosure[42]
cannot compel us to resolve this issue.
The Constitution provides that judicial
power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable.[43]
The exercise of judicial power requires an actual case calling for it. The courts
have no authority to pass upon issues through advisory opinions, or to resolve
hypothetical or feigned problems or friendly suits collusively arranged between
parties without real adverse interests.[44]
Furthermore, courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy
scholarly interest, however intellectually challenging.[45]
As a condition precedent to the exercise of judicial power, an actual
controversy between litigants must first exist.[46]
An actual case or controversy involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion
of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution, as distinguished
from a hypothetical or abstract difference or dispute.[47]
There must be a contrariety of legal rights that can be interpreted and
enforced on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence.[48]
This Court cannot issue a mere advisory
opinion in relation to the applicability of the provisions of the Procedure on
Foreclosure.
II.
Petitioners are
guilty of forum-shopping.
Petitioners have committed two distinct
acts of forum-shopping,[49]
namely: (1) petitioners willfully and deliberately went to different courts to avail
themselves of multiple judicial remedies founded on similar facts and raising
substantially similar reliefs, and (2) they did not comply with their
undertaking to report the filing of the Second Complaint within five days from
its filing.
A. Petitioners filed multiple suits based on similar facts while
seeking similar reliefsacts proscribed by the rules on forum-shopping.
We rule that petitioners were guilty of
willful and deliberate forum-shopping when they filed their Second Complaint
with the trial court insofar as they undertook to obtain similar reliefs as
those sought in the instant Petition.
Respondent Bank argues that the rights
asserted by petitioners, as well as the reliefs petitioners seek in the instant
Petition, are identical to those raised in their Second Complaint.[50]
Petitioners, on the other hand, counter
that the disparity between the two cases lies in the issue to be resolved. More
particularly, they allege that the issue in this Petition is the summary
application of the payment of 12% interest per annum as a precondition for the
issuance of a writ, as opposed to the issue in the Second Complaint involving the
validity of the real estate mortgage and compliance with the rules on the
holding of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale.[51]
Forum shopping is the act of litigants
who repetitively avail themselves of multiple judicial remedies in different fora, simultaneously or successively,
all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts
and circumstances; and raising substantially similar issues either pending in
or already resolved adversely by some other court; or for the purpose of
increasing their chances of obtaining a favorable decision, if not in one
court, then in another.[52]
The rationale against forum-shopping is that a party should not be allowed to
pursue simultaneous remedies in two different courts, for to do so would constitute
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.[53]
In Yu
v. Lim,[54] this
Court enumerated the requisites of forum-shopping, as follows:
Forum-shopping
exists when the elements of litis
pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. Litis pendentia requires the concurrence
of the following 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) identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the
two cases, 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.[55]
What is essential in determining the
existence of forum-shopping is the vexation caused the courts and litigants by
a party who asks different courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on similar
or related causes and/or grant the same or substantially similar reliefs, in
the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered
upon the same issues.[56]
A comparison of the reliefs sought by
petitioners in the instant Petition and in their Second Complaint confirms that
they are substantially similar on two points: (1) revocation and cancellation of
the Certificate of Sale and (2) permanent injunction on any transfer and/or
consolidation of title in favor of respondent Bank. These similarities undoubtedly
create the possibility of conflicting decisions from different courts:
|
Instant
Petition |
Second
Complaint |
|
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that
immediately upon filing of this petition, the same be given due course, and
an order issue, ex parte: (1)
A Resolution be issued directing the Ex-Officio Sheriff and his
Assisting Sheriff to undo, cancel, revoke the Certificate of Sale they issued; (2)
Enjoining the Register of Deeds
of Paranaque (or any of her subordinates, agents, representatives and persons
acting in their behalf to cease and
desist from allowing any transfer and/or consolidation of respondents banks
title to the property in question and an order be issued directing the Register of Deeds to undo,
cancel and revoke the registration of the Certificate of Sale on November 13,
2009 and other proceedings had thereafter, the petition be given due
course and judgment be rendered as follows: 1.
Making
the injunction permanent. 2.
Issuing a writ of mandatory
injunction for the respondent Ex-Officio Sheriff to undo, revoke and cancel the Certificate of Sale issued and/or
directing the Register of Deeds to undo, revoke and cancel the registration
of the Certificate of Sale and/or defer any consolidation of title in favor
of respondent bank pending final resolution of this petition. 3.
Reversing and setting aside the
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 24, 2010 and Resolution dated
August 5, 2010.[57] (Emphasis supplied.) |
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of the
Honorable Court that pending consideration and hearing on the principal
reliefs herein prayed for, a Temporary Restraining order (TRO) and/or Writ of
Preliminary Injunction be issued immediately restraining and/or stopping the defendants Ex-Officio Sheriff Atty.
Jerry R. Toledo and Deputy Sheriff Paulo Jose N. Cusi from executing and
issuing a final deed of sale in favor of the defendant bank and further
ordering the defendant Registrar of Deeds of Paranaque City to hold in
abeyance the registration of the final deed of sale and other documents of
consolidation pending resolution of this Honorable Court. Plaintiffs pray
for the following additional reliefs: 1.
After hearing on the merits,
the Real Estate Mortgage be declared and rescinded and/or null and void; 2.
The
Certificate of Sale [dated November 4, 2009] issued by the defendant Sheriffs
and its subsequent registration on November 13, 2009 with the Registry of
Deeds be declared null and void; 3.
After
due hearing, the preliminary injunction be declared permanent.
x x x[58] (Emphases supplied.) |
As illustrated above, there is a clear
violation of the rules on forum-shopping, as the Court is being asked to grant
substantially similar reliefs as those that may also be granted by the trial
court, in the process creating a possibility of conflicting decisions.
We emphasize that the grave evil sought
to be avoided by the rule against forum-shopping is the rendition by two
competent tribunals of two separate and contradictory decisions.[59]
To avoid any confusion, this Court adheres strictly to the rules against forum
shopping, and any violation of these rules results in the dismissal of a case.[60]
The acts committed and described herein can possibly constitute direct
contempt.[61]
B. Petitioners did not report the filing of their Second Complaint
within five (5) days, in violation of their undertaking to do so.
Aside from the fact that petitioners
sought substantially similar reliefs from different courts, they likewise
failed to disclose to this Court the filing of their Second Complaint within
five (5) days from its filing, in violation of their previous undertaking to do
so.[62]
Every litigant is required to notify the
court of the filing or pendency of any other action or such other proceeding
involving the same or similar action or claim within five (5) days of learning
of that fact.[63] Petitioners
claim that it was merely due to inadvertence that they failed to disclose the
said filing within five (5) days, contrary to their undertaking. [64]
This Court is not inclined to accept this
self-serving explanation. We cannot disregard the glaring fact that respondents
had to call the attention of petitioners to the said requirement before the
latter admitted that they had indeed filed their Second Complaint.
As previously established, petitioners
have violated two (2) components of forum-shopping, more particularly: (1) petitioners
willfully and deliberately went to different courts to avail themselves of
multiple judicial remedies founded on similar facts and raising substantially
similar reliefs, an act which may be punishable as direct contempt;[65]
and (2) they did not comply with their undertaking to report the filing of the
Second Complaint within five days from its filing. The latter action may also possibly
be construed as a separate count for indirect contempt.
While in a limited sense, petitioners
have already been given the chance to rebut the prayer to hold them in contempt,
We hereby provide sufficient avenue for them to explain themselves by requiring
them to show cause, within fifteen (15) days, why they should not be held in
direct and indirect contempt of court.
WHEREFORE,
the instant Petition for Review filed by Spouses Daisy Arevalo and Socrates M.
Arevalo is hereby DENIED. The Decision
dated 24 March 2010 and Resolution dated 05 August 2010 issued by the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 110806 are AFFIRMED.
Accordingly, petitioners are required to
SHOW CAUSE, within fifteen (15) days
from receipt of this Decision, why they should not be held in contempt; more
specifically: (a) for direct contempt of courtfor availing of multiple
judicial remedies founded on similar facts and raising substantially similar reliefs
from different courts; and (b) for indirect contempt of courtfor not complying
with their undertaking to report the filing of the Second Complaint within five
days from its filing.
SO ORDERED.
MARIA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRION
JOSE
Associate Justice Associate Justice
BIENVENIDO L.
REYES
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T
I O N
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
Courts Division.
Chairperson, Second Division
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, 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 Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 51-62.
[2] Rollo, p. 64.
[3] SC
Administrative Matter No. 99-10-05-0 dated 20 February 2007. (Hereinafter,
Procedure on Foreclosure).
[4] No temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary
injunction against the extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage shall
be issued on the allegation that the interest on the loan is unconscionable,
unless the debtor pays the mortgagee at least twelve percent per annum interest
on the principal obligation as stated in the application for foreclosure sale,
which shall be updated monthly while the case is pending. (Sec. 2 of the Procedure on
Foreclosure.)
[5]The Complaint for Nullification
of Interests, Penalties and Other Charges, Specific Performance with Prayer for
Preliminary Injunction, TRO and Damages dated 07 April 2009, docketed as Civil
Case No. 09-0126, entitled Daisy M.
Arevalo and Socrates M. Arevalo v. Planters Development Bank, Inc., then
pending before Regional Trial Court of Paraaque City, Branch 258, was
dismissed by virtue of an Order dated 27 October 2009; rollo, pp. 105-137, 231-236.
[6] Rollo, pp. 118-121.
[7] Rollo, p. 52.
[8] Rollo, p. 54.
[9] Order dated 24 April 2009; rollo, p. 139.
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] Rollo, pp. 140-159.
[13] Rollo, p. 145.
[14] Id.
[15] Order dated 10
July 2009; rollo, pp. 98-100.
[16] Rollo, pp. 160-166.
[17] Order dated 24 August 2009; rollo, pp. 102-103.
[18] Docketed as CA-GR No. 110806,
entitled Sps. Daisy Arevalo and Socrates
Arevalo v. The Presiding Judge Branch 258, Regional Trial Court of Paranaque
City; rollo, pp. 65-97.
[19] Rollo, p. 79.
[20] Order dated 27 October 2009; rollo, pp. 231-236.
[21] Docketed as CA-G.R. CV No.
94925, entitled Sps. Daisy & Socrates
Arevalo v. Planters Development Bank, Notice of Appeal dated 08 March 2010;
rollo, pp. 237-238 and Notice dated
28 September 2010; rollo, p. 239.
[22] Rollo, pp. 178-186.
[23] Rollo, pp. 60-61.
[24] Rollo, p. 60.
[25] Rollo, p. 64.
[26] Supra note 21.
[27] Rollo, pp. 290-299.
[28] Rollo, p. 8.
[29] Rollo, p. 27.
[30] Rollo, pp. 279-301.
[31] Id.
[32] Rollo, pp. 307-320.
[33] Rollo, pp. 334-347.
[34] Supra
note 20.
[35] Tantoy, Sr. v. Hon. Judge Abrogar, 497
Phil. 615 (2005).
[36]
Bustamante v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 126371, 17 April 2002, 381 SCRA 171.
[37] Golez v. Hon. Judge Leonidas, 194 Phil. 179 (1981).
[38] G.R. No. 177486, 21 December
2009, 608 SCRA 699.
[39] Id. at
703-705.
[40] Ley Construction & Development Corporation v. Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing
Corporation, 393 Phil. 633 (2000).
[41] Civil Case no. 10-0519 is
anchored on an entirely distinct causes of action, one of which, is that
despite the total approved loan was already annotated on petitioners TCT No. 13168
pursuant to the real estate mortgage, the respondent bank failed to release the
full amount of loan to the petitioners on various pretexts, thus, a substantial
portion of the consideration of the real estate mortgage was not released to
petitioners resulting to their substantial prejudice. Thus, in Civil Case No. CV-09-0126
before Branch 258, petitioners prayed for Specific Performance for the release
to the latter of the ₱602,013.93 which the respondent bank unjustifiably
withheld from them, but instead proceeded with the extrajudicial foreclosure of
the subject property.
Since
fulfillment is rendered legally impossible by the extrajudicial foreclosure
already conducted by the respondent bank, as in fact it may have already
consolidated its title over petitioners property, petitioners availed
themselves of the remedy provided, for under paragraph 2 of Article 1191 of the
Civil Code, which states:
x x x He may also seek rescission, even after he has chosen fulfillment
if the latter should become impossible. (Emphases supplied.) (Rollo, pp. 335-336.)
[42]
Rollo, p. 319.
[43] Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 3.
[44] Guingona, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,
354 Phil. 415, 426 (1998).
[45] Id.
[46] Id.
[47] Province of North Cotabato v. Government of the Republic of the Philippines
Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain (GRP), G.R. Nos. 183591, 183752, 183893
& 183591, 14 October 2008, 568 SCRA 402.
[48] Id.
[49] Sadang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140138, 11 October 2006, 504
SCRA 137.
[50] Rollo, pp. 285-288.
[51]
Rollo,
pp. 318, 340.
[52] Pilipino Telephone Corp. v. Radiomarine Network, Inc.,
G.R. No. 152092, 04 August 2010,
626 SCRA 702.
[53] Id.
[54] G.R. No. 182291, 22 September
2010, 631 SCRA 172.
[55] Id.
[56] Lim v. Vianzon, 529 Phil. 472 (2006).
[57] Rollo, pp. 41-42.
[58]
Rollo, pp.
298-299.
[59] Guevara v. BPI Securities Corporation, G.R. No. 159786, 15 August
2006, 498 SCRA 613.
[60] Dy v. Mandy Commodities Co., Inc., G.R. No. 171842, 22 July 2009, 593
SCRA 440.
[61] 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 constitute
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. (Emphases supplied.) (Rules of Court,
Rule 7, Sec. 5.)
[62] Rollo, pp. 43, 317-319 and 341-343.
[63] Rules of Court, Rule 45, Sec. 4,
in relation to Rule 42, Sec. 2; Rule 7, Sec. 5.
[64] Rollo, pp. 319 and 343.
[65] Rules of
Court, Rule 7, Sec. 5; Garcia v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 165835, 22 June 2005, 460 SCRA 600.