Republic
of the
Supreme Court
SECOND DIVISION
|
ELSA D. MEDADO, Petitioner,
- versus - HEIRS OF THE LATE ANTONIO CONSING, as represented by
DR. Respondents. |
G.R.
No. 186720
Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, BRION, PEREZ, SERENO,
and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: February 8, 2012 |
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
REYES, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which seeks to annul and set aside the following
issuances of the Court of Appeals (CA) in the case docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
02660, entitled Heirs of the Late Antonio Consing as represented by Dra.
(1) the
Decision[1]
dated September 26, 2008, reversing and setting aside the order[2] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 60, Cadiz
City, in Civil Case No. 797-C, an action
for injunction; and
(2) the
Resolution[3] dated
January 21, 2009, denying the motion for reconsideration
of the decision dated September 26, 2008.
The Factual Antecedents
Sometime in 1996,
petitioner Meritus Rey Medado and Elsa Medado (Spouses Medado) and the estate
of the late Antonio Consing (Estate of Consing), as represented by Soledad
Consing (
Subsequent
to the sale, however, the Estate of Consing offered the subject lots to the
government via the Department of
Agrarian Reform's Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) program. On November 22, 2000, the Estate of Consing
also instituted with the RTC, Branch 44 of Bacolod City an action for
rescission and damages, docketed as Civil Case No. 00-11320 against Spouses
Medado, PNB and the Register of Deeds of Cadiz City, due to the alleged failure
of the spouses to meet the conditions in their agreement.
In the meantime that Civil
Case No. 00-11320 for rescission was pending, Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP)
issued in favor of the Estate of Consing a certificate of deposit of cash and
agrarian reform bonds, as compensation for the lots covered by the VOS. Spouses
Medado feared that LBP would release the full proceeds thereof to the Estate of
Consing. They claimed to be the ones entitled to the proceeds considering that
they had bought the properties through the Deeds of Sale with Assumption of
Mortgage which they and the Estate of Consing had earlier executed.
The
foregoing prompted Spouses Medado to institute Civil Case No. 797-C, an action
for injunction with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order,
with the RTC, Branch 60 of Cadiz City.
They asked that the following be issued by the trial court: (a) writ of
prohibitory injunction to restrain LBP from releasing the remaining amount of
the VOS proceeds of the lots offered by the Estate of Consing, and restraining
the Estate of Consing from receiving these proceeds; and (b) writ of mandatory
injunction to compel LBP to release the remaining amount of the VOS to the
spouses.
On
March 9, 2007, the RTC of Cadiz City issued an Order[4]
granting Spouses Medado's application for the issuance of writs of preliminary
prohibitory and mandatory injunction.
The order's dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, finding the application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction and preliminary mandatory injunction of the plaintiffs to be MERITORIOUS, the same is hereby GRANTED.
Let therefore a Writ of Preliminary
Prohibitory and Mandatory Injunction be issued against defendant Land Bank, its
agents, lawyers and all other persons acting in its behalf to cease and desist
from releasing the balance of the VOS Proceeds to defendant Heirs of the Late
Antonio Consing as represented by Dra. Soledad Consing and restraining said
defendant Consing, her agents, lawyers, successors-in-interest, and all other
persons acting in its behalf from receiving the same and to maintain the STATUS
QUO ANTE BELLUM while defendant Land Bank of the Philippines is hereby ordered
to release and pay the whole of the remaining balance of the VOS Proceeds held
by the said defendant to the plaintiffs after the posting of a bond by the
plaintiffs in the amount of
FIVE MILLION PESOS (P5,000,000.00) executed in favor of the defendants
conditioned upon the payment to the said defendants by the plaintiffs [of] all
damages which the former may sustain by reason of the issuance of the writ of
preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction in case this Court should
finally decide that the plaintiffs are not entitled thereto.
Furnish copies of this Order to all counsels and parties.
SO ORDERED.[5]
Feeling
aggrieved, the heirs of the late Antonio Consing (Consing) questioned the RTC's
order via a petition for certiorari
filed with the CA, against Hon. Renato D. Muez, Presiding Executive Judge,
RTC, Branch 60 of Cadiz City, Spouses Medado, Sheriff IV Balbino B. Germinal of
RTC, Branch 60 of Cadiz City and LBP.
They sought, among other reliefs, the dismissal of the complaint for
injunction for violation of the rules on litis pendentia and forum
shopping. On the matter of the absence of a motion for reconsideration of the
trial court's order before resorting to a petition for certiorari, the heirs
explained that the implementation of the questioned writs through LBP's release
of the VOS proceeds' balance to the sheriff on March 29, 2007, notwithstanding:
(a) the pendency of motions for reconsideration and dissolution of the writs
filed by the heirs, and (b) the fact that the writs were immediately
implemented even if a hearing on the motions was already scheduled for March
30, 2007, prompted the heirs' withdrawal of their motions for being already
moot and academic. The heirs argued that
their case was within the exceptions to the general rule that a petition under
Rule 65 will not lie unless a motion for reconsideration is first filed before
the lower court.
In
their comment on the petition, Spouses Medado questioned, among other matters,
the authority of
The Ruling of the CA
On September 26, 2008, the CA rendered the assailed decision,[6]
the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the
petition being impressed with merit is GRANTED. The assailed Order dated March 9, 2007 is NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE and the complaint in Civil
Case No. 797-C DISMISSED. Private respondents are directed to return
P3,743,825.88 to Land Bank of the
No costs.
SO ORDERED.[7]
The CA ruled that the RTC
gravely abused its discretion in taking cognizance of Civil Case No. 797-C for
injunction during the pendency of Civil Case No. 00-11320 for rescission and
damages as this violates the rule against forum shopping.
Spouses
Medado's motion for reconsideration of the decision of September 26, 2008 was
denied by the CA via its Resolution[8]
dated January 21, 2009. Hence, this
petition.
The Present Petition
This petition was
instituted by petitioner Elsa Medado without naming her husband as
co-petitioner, due to their alleged separation de facto.[9] It presents the following issues for this
Court's determination:
I. Whether or not the CA correctly
admitted the petition for certiorari filed before it,
notwithstanding alleged deficiencies in its verification and certification
against forum shopping;
II. Whether
or not the CA correctly admitted the petition for certiorari filed
before it even if no motion for reconsideration of the RTCs Order dated March 9, 2007 was filed with the lower court; and
III. Whether
or not the CA correctly held that the rule against forum shopping was violated by the filing of the complaint for injunction during the pendency of the action
for rescission and damages.
In their comment on the
petition, the respondents also raise as an issue the failure of the petitioner
to join her husband as a party to the petition, considering that the action
affects conjugal property.
This Court's Ruling
After
due study, this Court finds the petition bereft of merit.
The requirements for verification and certification against forum shopping in the CA
petition were substantially complied with, following settled jurisprudence.
Before us, the petitioner
contended that the consolidated verification and certification against forum
shopping of the petition filed with the CA was defective: first, for being
signed only by Soledad, instead of by all the petitioners, and second, its jurat
cites a mere community tax certificate of Soledad, instead of a
government-issued identification card required under the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice. The second ground was never
raised by
herein petitioner in her comment on the CA petition, thus, it cannot be validly
raised by the petitioner at this stage.
As regards the first ground,
records show that
To protect, sue, prosecute, defend and adopt whatever action
necessary and proper relative and with respect to our right, interest and
participation over said properties, particularly those described in previous
titles under TCT No. T-498, TCT No. T-31275, TCT No. T-31276 and TCT No.
T-31277 of the [R]egister of Deeds,
As may be gleaned from the
foregoing, the authority of Soledad includes the filing of an appeal before the
CA, including the execution of a verification and certification against forum
shopping therefor, being acts necessary to protect, sue, prosecute, defend and
adopt whatever action necessary and proper in relation to their rights over
the subject properties.
In
addition, the allegations and contentions embodied in the CA petition do not
deviate from the claims already made by the heirs in Civil Case Nos. 00-11320
and 797-C, both specifically mentioned in the SPA. We emphasize that the verification
requirement is simply intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in
the pleading are true and correct, and not the product of the imagination or a
matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith.[12] We rule that there was no deficiency in the
petition's verification and certification against forum shopping filed with the
CA.
In
any case, we reiterate that where the petitioners are immediate relatives, who
share a common interest in the property subject of the action, the fact that
only one of the petitioners executed the verification or certification of forum
shopping will not deter the court from proceeding with the action. In Heirs of Domingo Hernandez, Sr. v.
Mingoa, Sr.,[13]
we held:
Even if only petitioner Domingo
Hernandez, Jr. executed the Verification/Certification against forum-shopping,
this will not deter us from proceeding with the judicial determination of the
issues in this petition. As we
ratiocinated in Heirs of Olarte v. Office of the President:
The general rule is that the certificate of non-forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs in a case and the signature of only one of them is insufficient. However, the Court has also stressed that the rules on forum shopping were designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice and thus should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective. The rule of substantial compliance may be availed of with respect to the contents of the certification. This is because the requirement of strict compliance with the provisions regarding the certification of non-forum shopping merely underscores its mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely disregarded. Thus, under justifiable circumstances, the Court has relaxed the rule requiring the submission of such certification considering that although it is obligatory, it is not jurisdictional.
In HLC Construction and Development Corporation v. Emily Homes Subdivision Homeowners Association, it was held that the signature of only one of the petitioners in the certification against forum shopping substantially complied with [the] rules because all the petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense.
The same leniency was applied by the Court in Cavile v. Heirs of Cavile, because the lone petitioner who executed the certification of non-forum shopping was a relative and co-owner of the other petitioners with whom he shares a common interest. x x x
x x x
Here,
all the petitioners are immediate relatives who share a common interest in the
land sought to be reconveyed and a common cause of action raising the same
arguments in support thereof. There was
sufficient basis, therefore, for Domingo Hernandez, Jr. to speak for and in behalf
of his co-petitioners when he certified that they had not filed any action or
claim in another court or tribunal involving the same issues. Thus, the Verification/Certification that
Hernandez, Jr. executed constitutes substantial compliance under the Rules.[14]
(citations omitted)
Furthermore, we have
consistently held that verification of a pleading is a formal, not a jurisdictional,
requirement intended to secure the assurance that the matters alleged in a
pleading are true and correct. Thus, the
court may simply order the correction of unverified pleadings or act on them
and waive strict compliance with the rules.
It is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample
knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition
signs the verification; and when matters alleged in the petition have been made
in good faith or are true and correct.[15] It was based on this principle that this
Court had also allowed herein petitioner, via
our Resolution[16] dated
April 22, 2009, a chance to submit a verification that complied with Section 4,
Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, as amended, instead of us dismissing the petition
outright.
There are recognized exceptions permitting resort to a special civil action of certiorari
even without first filing a motion for reconsideration.
On the second issue, the CA did not
err in accepting the petition for certiorari even if the motion for
reconsideration of the RTC Order of March 9, 2007 was withdrawn by herein respondents
before the RTC could act thereon. It is
settled that the requirement on the filing of a motion for
reconsideration prior to the institution of a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court admits of several exceptions, such as when
the filing of a motion appears to be useless given the circumstances attending
the action. Thus, we have repeatedly
held:
The general rule is that a motion for
reconsideration is a condition sine qua non before a petition for certiorari
may lie, its purpose being to grant an opportunity for the court a quo
to correct any error attributed to it by re-examination of the legal and
factual circumstances of the case. There
are, however, recognized exceptions permitting a resort to the special civil
action for certiorari without first filing a motion for reconsideration. In the case of Domdom v. Sandiganbayan,
it was written:
The
rule is, however, circumscribed by well-defined exceptions, such as where the
order is a patent nullity because the court a
quo had no jurisdiction; where the questions raised in the certiorari
proceeding have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the
same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court; where there is an
urgent necessity for the resolution of the question, and any further delay
would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner, or the subject matter of
the action is perishable; where, under the circumstances, a motion for
reconsideration would be useless; where the petitioner was deprived of due
process and there is extreme urgency of relief; where, in a criminal case,
relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the grant of such relief by the
trial court is improbable; where the proceedings in the lower court are a
nullity for lack of due process; where
the proceedings were ex parte or in
which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and where the
issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is
involved.[17]
(emphasis supplied, and citations and underscoring omitted)
As correctly held by the CA, a motion
for reconsideration, or the resolution of the trial court thereon, had become
useless given that the particular acts which the movants sought to prevent by
the filing of the motion were already carried out. Significantly, the heirs of
the late Consing had filed a motion for reconsideration of the RTC's order, but
withdrew it only after the trial court had decided to implement the writs
notwithstanding the pendency of the motion and just a day before the scheduled
hearing on said motion.
Forum-shopping exists when the
elements of litis pendentia concur.
On the third issue, there is forum
shopping when the elements of litis pendentia are present, i.e., between
actions pending before courts, there exist: (1) identity of parties, or at
least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions, (2)
identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on
the same facts, and (3) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such
that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party
is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration;
said requisites are also constitutive of the requisites for auter action
pendant or lis pendens.[18] Applying the foregoing, there was clearly a
violation of the rule against forum shopping when Spouses Medado instituted Civil
Case No. 797-C for injunction notwithstanding the pendency of Civil Case No.
00-11320 for rescission of contract and damages.
All
elements of litis pendentia are present with the filing of the two
cases. There is no dispute that there is
identity of parties representing the same interests in the two actions, both
involving the estate and heirs of the late Consing on one hand, and Spouses
Medado on the other. The rescission case
names Soledad T. Consing, for herself and as administratrix of the estate of
Antonio Consing as plaintiff, with Spouses Meritus Rey and Elsa Medado, [PNB]
and the Register of Deeds of Cadiz City as respondents. The injunction case, on the other hand, was
instituted by Spouses Medado, against (LBP) and the Heirs of the Late Antonio
Consing, as represented by Dra.
The two other elements are
likewise satisfied. There is an identity
of
rights asserted and reliefs prayed for in the two cases, with the reliefs being
founded on the same set of facts. In
both cases, the parties claim their supposed right as owners of the subject
properties. They all anchor their claim
of ownership on the deeds of absolute sale which they had executed, and the law
applicable thereto. They assert their
respective rights, with Spouses Medado as buyers and the heirs as sellers,
based on the same set of facts that involve the deeds of sale's contents and
their validity. Both actions necessarily
involve a ruling on the validity of the same contract as against the same
parties. Thus, the identity of the two
cases is such as would render the decision in the rescission case res
judicata in the injunction case, and vice versa.
It
does not even matter that one action is for the enforcement of the parties'
agreements, while the other action is for the rescission thereof. In the similar case of Victronics
Computers, Inc. v. RTC, Branch 63,
Civil Case No.
91-2069 actually involves an action for specific performance; it thus upholds
the contract and assumes its validity. Civil Case No. 91-2192, on the other
hand, is for the nullification of the contract on the grounds of fraud and
vitiated consent. While ostensibly
the cause of action in one is opposite to that in the other, in the final
analysis, what is being determined is the validity of the contract. x x x
Thus, the identity of rights asserted cannot be disputed. Howsoever viewed, it is beyond cavil that
regardless of the decision that would be promulgated in Civil Case No. 91-2069,
the same would constitute res judicata on Civil Case No. 91-2192 and vice
versa.[20]
(emphasis supplied)
This
was further explained in Casil v. CA,[21]
where we ruled:
The
Court of Appeals held that there can be no res adjudicata because there
is no identity of causes of action between the two cases. We do not agree. In the two cases, both petitioner and private
respondent brought to fore the validity of the agreement dated May 4,
1994. Private respondent raised this
point as an affirmative defense in her answer in the First Case. She brought it up again in her complaint in
the Second Case. A single issue cannot be litigated in more than one
forum. As held in Mendiola vs. Court
of Appeals:
The similarity between the two causes of action is only too glaring. The test of identity of causes of action lies not in the form of an action but on whether the same evidence would support and establish the former and the present causes of action. The difference of actions in the aforesaid cases is of no moment. In Civil Case No. 58713, the action is to enjoin PNB from foreclosing petitioner's properties, while in Civil Case No. 60012, the action is one to annul the auction sale over the foreclosed properties of petitioner based on the same grounds. Notwithstanding a difference in the forms of the two actions, the doctrine of res judicata still applies considering that the parties were litigating for the same thing, i.e. lands covered by TCT No. 27307, and more importantly, the same contentions and evidence as advanced by herein petitioner in this case were in fact used to support the former cause of action.[22]
The CA was then correct in ordering
the dismissal of the complaint in Civil Case No. 797-C for violation of the
rule against forum shopping. The issue
on the validity of the subject deeds of absolute sale can best be addressed in the
action for rescission, as against the case for injunction filed by Spouses Medado. In a line of cases, we have set the relevant
factors that
courts must consider when they have to determine which case should be
dismissed, given the pendency of two actions, to wit:
(1) the date of filing,
with preference generally given to the first action
filed to be retained;
(2) whether the action
sought to be dismissed was filed merely to preempt
the latter action or to anticipate its filing and lay the basis for its dismissal; and
(3) whether
the action is the appropriate vehicle for litigating the issues between the parties.[23]
We
emphasize that the rules on forum shopping are meant to prevent such
eventualities as conflicting final decisions.[24] This
Court has consistently held that the costly consequence of forum shopping
should remind the parties to ever be mindful against abusing court processes.[25]
In addition, the principle of res judicata requires that stability be
accorded to judgments. Controversies
once decided on the merits shall remain in repose for there should be an end to
litigation which, without the doctrine, would be endless.[26]
Given
the foregoing grounds already warranting the denial of this petition, we deem
it no longer necessary to take any action or to now rule on the issue of the
non-joinder of the petitioner's husband in the petition.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant
petition for review on certiorari is hereby DENIED. Accordingly,
the Court of Appeals
Decision dated September 26, 2008, which reversed and set aside the order of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 60,
SO ORDERED.
BIENVENIDO
L. REYES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
|
ARTURO D. BRION Associate
Justice |
JOSE Associate
Justice |
MARIA
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.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Second Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
and the Division Chairperson's 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] Penned by Associate Justice Amy C.
Lazaro-Javier, with Associate Justices Francisco P. Acosta and Edgardo L. Delos
Santos, concurring; rollo, pp.
31-43.
[2]
[3]
[4] Supra note 2.
[5] Rollo, pp. 140-141.
[6] Supra note 1.
[7] Rollo, pp. 42-43.
[8] Supra note 3.
[9] Rollo, p. 5.
[10]
[11]
[12] Republic v. Coalbrine International Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 161838, April 7, 2010, 617 SCRA 491, 499.
[13] G.R. No. 146548, December 18, 2009, 608 SCRA 394.
[14]
[15]
[16] Rollo, pp. 143-144.
[17] Pineda v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 181643, November 17, 2010, 635 SCRA 274, 281-282.
[18] Making Enterprises, Inc. v. Marfori, G.R. No. 152239, August 17, 2011.
[19] G.R. No. 104019, January 25, 1993, 217 SCRA 517.
[20]
[21] 349 Phil 187 (1998).
[22]
[23] Villarica Pawnshop, Inc. v. Gernale, G.R. No. 163344, March 20, 2009, 582 SCRA 67, 81-82; Casil v. CA, supra note 21, at 204; Allied Banking Corp. v. CA, 328 Phil 710, 719 (1996).
[24] Collantes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 169604, March 6, 2007, 517 SCRA 561, 568.
[25]
[26] Nacuray v. NLRC, 336 Phil 749, 757 (1997).