Republic
of the
Supreme Court
SECOND DIVISION
|
JESSE Petitioner,
- versus - COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL ELEVENTH [11TH]
DIVISION), and ELIZA CHUA and EVELYN
TE, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 186730
Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, BRION, PEREZ, SERENO,
and REYES,
JJ. Promulgated: June
13, 2012 |
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
R E S O L U T I O N
REYES, J.:
This
is a petition for review on certiorari
of the Decision[1] dated
December 10, 2008 and Resolution[2]
dated February 19, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No.
93974. The dispositive portion of the
CAs assailed Decision states:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered by us GRANTING the petition filed in this case and the Orders issued by the public respondent Judge Rommel O. Baybay dated October 21, 2005 and January 18, 2006 are hereby SET ASIDE. Consequently, Civil Case No. 04-030 is hereby ordered as DISMISSED on account of litis pendentia and violation of the rule against forum-shopping.
SO ORDERED.[3]
On January 9, 2004, petitioner Jesse
Yap (Yap) filed a complaint against respondents Eliza Chua (Chua) and Evelyn Te
(Te) with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Chua, one of those who funded his
purchases, asked him to issue checks with her as payee to replace the checks he
delivered to Te. Obliging, he drew six
(6) checks payable to her against his account with BPI, which were uniformly
postdated July 30, 1997. Particularly:
|
Check No. |
Amount |
|
|
659599 |
|
|
|
708158 |
|
|
|
708160 |
|
|
|
712418 |
|
|
|
712417 |
|
|
|
727214 |
|
He stopped payment on the above checks and closed his account
when Te failed to deliver the titles on the properties. He also did the same on the following checks
that Te endorsed to Chua for rediscounting without his consent:
|
Check No. |
Date |
Amount |
|
|
0727205 |
September 15, 1997 |
|
|
|
0727206 |
September 30, 1997 |
|
He delivered to Te these checks, which were payable to a
certain Badoria Bagatao (Bagatao), for the purchase of a parcel of land that,
as Te represented, Bagatao supposedly owns.
He, however, was later informed of the contrary leading to the
conclusion that as no consideration attended the contract with Bagatao and all
the other contracts of sale that he entered into through Te, it was just proper
that the checks he issued as payment be cancelled or annulled.
Chua
presented an altogether different version of the facts. According to Chua, she released P9,415,000.00
to Yap through a certain Jovita Dimalanta (Dimalanta) sometime in January 1997
in exchange for two (2) postdated checks payable to her with a face value of P5,000,000.00
each. A similar transaction took place
in February 1997, where she delivered to Dimalanta P9,415,000.00 upon
request of P10,000,000.00. P1,400,000.00 and P1,206,066.66 to
cover the interest due.
P5,000,000.00 each with a check payable to Chua for P20,000,000.00
and postdated April 22, 1997. When this
check became due, P20,000,000.00
covered by BPI Check Nos. 712418 and 712417.
Apparently,
BPI
Check Nos. 659599, 708158, 708160, 712418, 712417 and 727214 were dishonored
for the reason account closed. On the
other hand,
Verbal demands for
On
June 8, 2001, the RTC of General Santos City issued a Decision,[6]
the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendants, ordering the latter to pay the former the following:
1. P32,558,332.00
as principal with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the
case until the whole amount is fully paid;
2. P150,000.00
as moral damages;
3. P50,000,00 as exemplary damages;
4. P1,000,000.00 in concept of
attorneys fees; and
5. The cost of suit.
The third-party complaint is DISMISSED.[7]
Armed with the foregoing narration, Chua moved for the dismissal
of Civil Case No. 04-030 on the twin grounds of litis pendentia and forum shopping.
Chua averred that
In
an Order[8]
dated October 21, 2005, the RTC of Makati City refused to dismiss the case,
ratiocinating as follows:
On litis pendentia as a ground for dismissal, the Court is not convinced. As correctly stated by the plaintiff, the reliefs prayed for in the two cases are different from each other considering that the collection case before the RTC of General Santos City is different from the instant case praying for the discharge/annulment of issued checks. As such the fundamental requisites of [litis pendentia] have not been met.
Anent dismissal on ground of forum shopping, the same is likewise denied for lack of merit. It is well-settled that it is the duty of the plaintiff, not the defendant, to declare pending suits it initiated between and among parties in its verification and certificate of non-forum shopping and not the other way around. A plaintiff in a civil case therefore, is not mandated under the Rules to declare that said plaintiff was a defendant in a prior suit instituted against him and other defendants by the defendant in a subsequent case of different nature.[9]
In an Order[10]
dated January 18, 2006, the RTC of Makati City denied Chuas motion for
reconsideration.
Chua filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, alleging that
grave abuse of discretion attended the Orders of the RTC of Makati City dated October
21, 2005 and January 18, 2006. By virtue
of the assailed decision, this was given due course and the CA ordered the
dismissal of Civil Case No. 04-030.
After a careful and judicious scrutiny of the whole matter, together with the applicable laws and jurisprudence on the premises, we have come up with a finding that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed orders.
The requisites of [litis pendentia] are: (a) the identity of parties or at least such as representing the same interests in both actions; (b) the identity of rights asserted and the relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other.
The
relief sought in Chua in Civil Case No. 6236 was for
The
cause of action of
A Motion to Dismiss was timely filed by Chua invoking litis pendencia (sic) and violation of the rule against forum shopping. After having been appraised of the pending appeal before the Supreme Court of a case involving the same parties based on the same rights and reliefs sought, the respondent judge should have granted the said motion of Chua and dismissed Civil Case No. 04-030.[11] (Citations omitted)
Forum shopping is the institution of two or more actions or proceedings involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. Forum shopping may be resorted to by any party against whom an adverse judgment or order has been issued in one forum, in an attempt to seek a favorable opinion in another, other than by appeal or a special civil action for certiorari. Forum shopping trifles with the courts, abuses their processes, degrades the administration of justice and congest court dockets.[12] What is critical is the vexation brought upon the courts and the litigants by a party who asks different courts to rule on the same or related causes and grant the same or substantially the same reliefs and in the process creates the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issues.[13] Willful and deliberate violation of the rule against forum shopping is a ground for summary dismissal of the case; it may also constitute direct contempt.[14]
To determine whether a party violated
the rule against forum shopping, the most important factor to
ask is whether the elements of litis
pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case will amount
to res judicata in another; otherwise stated, the test for determining
forum shopping is whether in the two (or more) cases pending,
there is identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought.[15]
Litis pendentia
as a ground for the dismissal of a civil action refers to that situation
wherein another action is pending between the same parties for the same cause
of action, such that the second action becomes unnecessary and vexatious. The underlying principle of litis pendentia is the theory that a
party is not allowed to vex another more than once regarding the same subject
matter and for the same cause of action.
This theory is founded on the public policy that the same subject matter
should not be the subject of controversy in courts more than once, in order
that possible conflicting judgments may be avoided for the sake of the
stability of the rights and status of persons.
The requisites of litis pendentia are: (a) the identity of
parties, or at least such as representing the same interests in both actions;
(b) the identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being
founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two cases such that
judgment in one,
regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other.[16]
The foregoing guided this Court in
determining whether Yap is liable for forum shopping for filing a complaint for
annulment or discharge of checks following Chuas filing of a complaint for a
sum of money with the two cases allegedly involving the same factual antecedents,
issues and arguments. In so doing, this
Court agrees with the CA that all the elements of litis pendentia exist and that
The first requisite of litis pendentia is present as there is
identity of parties. The second and
third requisites are likewise present. Apart
from the fact that the same factual antecedents prompted the filing of the two
cases, that
Hornbook is the rule that identity of
causes of action does not mean absolute identity; otherwise, a party could
easily escape the operation of res
judicata by changing the form of the action or the relief sought. The test to determine whether the causes of
action are identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence will sustain
both actions, or whether there is an identity in the facts essential to the maintenance
of the two actions. If the same facts or
evidence would sustain both, the two actions are considered the same, and a
judgment in the first case is a bar to the subsequent action. Hence, a party cannot, by varying the form of
action or adopting a different method of presenting his case, escape the
operation of the principle that one and the same cause of action shall not be
twice litigated between the same parties or their privies. Among the several tests resorted to in
ascertaining whether two suits relate to a single or common cause of action
are: (1) whether the same evidence would support and sustain both the first and
second causes of action; and (2) whether the defenses in one case
may be used to substantiate the complaint in the other.[17] Also fundamental is the test of determining
whether the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of the
filing of the first complaint.[18]
This Court takes note of the fact
that
As this Court held in Madara v. Perello:[19]
Other permutations depending on the rulings of the two courts and the timing of these rulings are possible. In every case, our justice system suffers as this kind of sharp practice opens the system to the possibility of manipulation; to uncertainties when conflict of rulings arise; and at least to vexation for complications other than conflict of rulings. Thus, it matters not that ultimately the Court of Appeals may completely agree with the RTC; what the rule on forum shopping addresses are the possibility and the actuality of its harmful effects on our judicial system.[20]
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated December 10, 2008 and Resolution
dated February 19, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 93974 are AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Senior Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Second Division
|
ARTURO D. BRION Associate
Justice |
JOSE Associate
Justice |
MARIA
Associate
Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
I
certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Courts Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Senior
Associate Justice
(Per Section 12, R.A. 296
The
Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended)
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Isaias Dicdican, with Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Marlene Gonzales-Sison, concurring; rollo, pp. 210-217.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] Spouses dela Cruz v. Joaquin, 502 Phil. 803, 813 (2005).
[13] Top Rate Construction & General Services, Inc. v. Paxton Development Corporation, 457 Phil. 740, 748 (2003).
[14]
[15] Young v. John Keng Seng, 446 Phil. 823, 833 (2003).
[16] Villarica Pawnshop, Inc. v. Gernale, G.R. No. 163344, March 20, 2009, 582 SCRA 67, 78-79.
[17] Subic
Telecommunications Company, Inc. v.
[18] Umale v. Canoga Park Development Corporation, G.R. No. 167246, July 20, 2011, 654 SCRA 155, 162.
[19] G.R. No. 172449, August 20, 2008, 562 SCRA 638.
[20]