FIRST DIVISION
|
GOODLAND COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, -
versus - |
G.R. No. 195546 |
|
|
Respondents. |
|
|
|
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-x |
|
|
|
GOODLAND COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, - versus - CO, ATTY. JOEL T.
PELICANO AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS
OF Respondents. |
G.R. No. 195561 Present:
Chairperson, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BERSAMIN, VILLARAMA,
JR., and PERLAS-BERNABE,* JJ. Promulgated:
March
14, 2012 |
|
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
VILLARAMA,
JR., J.:
These consolidated petitions for
review on certiorari filed under Rule
45 by one and the same party (Goodland Company, Inc.) both assail the
Decision[1]
dated
Factual Antecedents
Sometime in July 1999, petitioner
Goodland Company, Inc. (petitioner) mortgaged its two parcels of land situated
in Sta. Rosa, Laguna and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. 321672
and 321673 (Laguna Properties). The
Third Party Real Estate Mortgage (REM) secured
the loans extended by respondent Asia United Bank (AUB) to Radio Marine Network
(Smartnet), Inc. (RMNSI), doing business as Smartnet
In addition to the aforesaid collaterals, petitioner
executed a Third Party REM over its 5,801-square meter property located at
Pasong Tamo St., Makati City (Makati
Property) covered by TCT No. 114645.
The REMs, both signed by Gilbert G. Guy, President of Goodland Company,
Inc., were duly registered by AUB with the Registry of Deeds for Calamba, Laguna
and Registry of Deeds for
Subsequently, however, petitioner repudiated the REMs by
claiming that AUB and its officers unlawfully filled up the blank mortgage
forms and falsified the entries therein.
The Laguna properties were the subject of two suits filed by petitioner
to forestall their imminent foreclosure, and similar actions were likewise instituted
by petitioner involving the
Laguna Properties[4]
On
Prior to the consolidation of title in the foreclosing
mortgagee (AUB), petitioner commenced a second suit on
On
On
On
Petitioner appealed both dismissals to the CA, the separate
appeals it filed were docketed as CA-G.R.
CV No. 90114 (injunction case) and CA-G.R.
CV No. 91269 (annulment case).
On
In a decision dated
Respondents
elevated to this Court the CAs reversal of the RTCs dismissal orders, in separate petitions for
review under Rule 45, docketed as G.R.
No. 190231 (CA-G.R. CV No. 91269)
and G.R. No. 191388 (CA-G.R. CV No.
90114).
On
On
Petitioner filed the first suit assailing the REM over its
property covered by TCT No. 114645 on
Petitioner further claimed that it learned from Smartnet
that the latter never obtained any peso-denominated loan from AUB, as all its
loans for working capital were in clean Japanese Yen loans. Being a falsified document, the subsequent
annotation of the REM on the title of petitioner subjected the latter to an
encumbrance never intended nor consented to by petitioner as owner, and
consequently to the risk of foreclosure at the behest of AUB. Petitioner also alleged bad faith on the
part of AUB and Co in the fraudulent execution and registration of the REM
without its knowledge and consent, while respondent Pelicanos acknowledgment
on the spurious REM is a violation of his duties as a notary public and made
him a party to the fraudulent act.
Petitioner thus prayed for the following reliefs:
1.
the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage dated
2.
the annotation of real estate mortgage on TCT-114645 under Entry No.
53584 be cancelled, and that defendants AUB and Co be ordered to surrender the
said titles to plaintiff Goodland;
3.
defendants AUB, Abraham Co, and Joel T. Pelicano be adjudged jointly and
severally liable to plaintiff Goodland the sum of PhP5,000,000.00 as actual
damages, PhP1,000,000.00 as attorneys fees and PhP1,000,000.00 as expenses of
litigation;
4.
defendants AUB and Abraham Co be adjudged jointly and severally liable
to pay plaintiff Goodland the sum of PhP2,000,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
5.
defendant Joel T. Pelicano, be adjudged liable to pay plaintiff Goodland
the sum of P1,000,000.00 as exemplary damages;
Plaintiff prays for cost of suit
and for such further or other reliefs and remedies just or equitable under the
premises.[9]
On November 30, 2006, petitioner filed the second case against herein
respondents AUB and its officers Christine T. Chan, Florante Del Mundo,
Engracio M. Escasinas, Jr. (RTC of Makati City Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio
Sheriff), Norberto B. Magsajo (Sheriff IV) and Ronald A. Ortile (Register of
Deeds for Makati City), docketed as Civil
Case No. 06-1032 of RTC of Makati City, Branch 145. Whereas the earlier case (Civil Case No.
03-045) sought the annulment of the REM based on alleged irregularities in its
execution, Civil Case No. 06-1032 prayed for injunctive relief and/or
nullification of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale which petitioner alleged to
be procedurally and legally defective on account of the following:
1. The annotation of the falsified Third Party MORTGAGE was contrary
to and in violation of the express agreement of defendant AUB and plaintiff
GOODLAND;
2. The Extra-Judicial Foreclosure is null and void as it is based on a
null and void registration/annotation of a falsified Real Estate Mortgage;
3. Defendant
AUBs insistence on conducting the foreclosure despite the pendency of the
annulment case betrays the utter bad faith and malicious intent of defendant
AUB;
4. The
foreclosure is for an alleged unpaid obligation of RMNI which is not secured by the subject Third
Party MORTGAGE;
5. No demands for payment were made by defendant AUB on SPI;
6. The
publication of the subject Notice of
Sheriffs
7. The
provision on redemption in the General Banking Law of 2000 (R.A. No. 8791),
that is, Section 47 (par. 2) thereof, is unconstitutional on the ground that it
violates the constitutional right of plaintiff GOODLAND to equal protection of
the laws under Sec. 1, Art. III of the Constitution. It also violates the prohibition against
impairment of the obligations of contracts stipulated in Sec. 10, Art. III of
the Constitution because it takes away from plaintiff GOODLAND the vested
one-year redemption period under the existing law (Sec. 6 of Act No. 3135) at
the time of the delivery of the subject Third Party MORTGAGE to defendant AUB
in June 1999. The one (1) year redemption period of plaintiff GOODLAND under Sec. 6 of Act No.
3135 was drastically reduced to a maximum of three
(3) months only to as
short as twenty-four (24) hours,
as what happened in the other foreclosure conducted by defendant AUB on the
Sta. Rosa, Laguna properties of plaintiff GOODLAND.[10] (Emphasis and italics in the
original.)
In addition to the
issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and writ of preliminary
injunction to be made permanent after trial, petitioner specifically prayed
that judgment be rendered in its favor and against the respondents, as follows:
(1) Declaring the annotation
and registration of the subject Third
Party MORTGAGE with the Registry of Deeds of Makati City as null and void and of no legal force and effect;
(2) In the event that a valid and legal auction sale be already conducted,
declaring that the foreclosure proceeding/sale of the subject mortgaged
property and/or the Certificate of Sale issued in favor of the winning bidder,
as null and void and of no legal force and effect;
(3) In the event that plaintiff GOODLANDs title to the subject property
be already cancelled and the title was already consolidated or a new title
already issued in favor of the winning bidder, declaring the said cancellation
of title and consolidation of title and issuance of new title in the name of
the winning bidder, as null and void, and ordering the cancellation of the said invalidly
issued new title in the name of the winning bidder and likewise ordering the issuance of new title in the name of plaintiff
GOODLAND;
(3) In the alternative, in
the event that the Honorable Court finds the foreclosure proceedings as proper,
valid and legal, declaring that Section 47 (par. 2) of the General Banking Law
of 2000 (R.A. No. 8791) is unconstitutional,
and granting plaintiff GOODLAND the right to redeem the mortgaged properties in
accordance with the provisions of Sec. 6 of Act No. 3135;
(4) Ordering defendants AUB, Christine T. Chan and Florante del Mundo
to, jointly and severally, pay plaintiff GOODLAND the following amounts, to
wit:
(A) Actual and compensatory damages in the amount
of not less than Four Million Pesos (P4,000,000.00);
(B) Exemplary damages in the amount of not less
than One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00);
(C) Attorneys fees in the amount of Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00);
(D) Litigation expenses; and,
(E) Costs of suit.[11]
On
Respondents filed their Answer Ad Cautelam[13]
denying the allegations of the complaint regarding the fraudulent execution and
registration of the REM and the loan obligation it secured, irregularities in
the conduct of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale, and that their acts were
done in bad faith. They asserted that:
(1) Based on representations by Mr. Gilbert Guy, RMNSI, Smartnet
Philippines and SPI operate under one
and the same entity, all being businesses of Mr. Guy and hence, Smartnet
Philippines undoubtedly refers to RMNSI which has an authorized capital stock
of Php400 million and an Omnibus Credit Line with AUB, while SPI, a corporate
shell created by Mr. Guy, has an authorized capital stock of only Php1 million
and has not been granted any credit facility by AUB; (2) the mortgage deed
states that the debtor is Smartnet Philippines, the DTI-registered name of
RMNSI, as also with the Secretarys Certificate of petitioner in connection
with the authority to use the Makati property as security for the loan
obligation of RMNSI, and the promissory notes involved in the foreclosure
application; (3) There was never any understanding not to complete or register
the REM document as AUB would not have approved the loans if not for the
security offered by petitioner; Mr. Guy himself transmitted the REM he signed,
which was not a blank document, and petitioner knew from the start the
registration of the REM was forthcoming after its due execution by Mr. Guy, as
the same would be in the normal course of business of AUB; (4) The same facts
obtain in connection with the mortgage of petitioners Laguna Properties; (5) The REM was valid and binding, the property
covered thereby may be validly foreclosed; respondents have not performed any
irregularity or violation of law, and have neither engaged in any fraudulent, malicious and abusive conduct or
transaction; it was petitioner and Mr. Guy who had conspired to defraud AUB by,
among others, denying the validity and due execution of the REM; (6) AUB
complied with the legal requirements for the extrajudicial foreclosure of the
subject property including the public
auction held on December 4, 2006 conducted by Sheriff Magsajo in the presence
of a representative of petitioner who did not bid, and accordingly AUB
consolidated its ownership over the foreclosed property sold to it as the
highest bidder, with the issuance of TCT No.
Respondents contended that petitioner is guilty of forum
shopping, as it has previously filed a case for the annulment of the REM (Civil
Case No. 03-045) which is pending before Branch 56. Said case was based on the same cause of
action, that is, petitioners perceived irregularities in the execution and
registration of the REM. The injunctive
relief sought by petitioner against the foreclosure is properly a provisional
and ancillary remedy in the annulment case; the institution of the injunction case
was therefore not compelled by respondents acts but by petitioners own
negligence and contempt.
The following affirmative and special defenses were
likewise raised by respondents: (1) the RTC has no jurisdiction over the
subject matter considering petitioners fraudulent failure to pay the correct
amount of docket fees, as it deliberately concealed the fair market value of
the subject property; (2) without prejudice to other sanctions, the complaint
should be summarily dismissed considering that petitioner engaged in a willful,
deliberate and contumacious act of forum shopping; the certificate of non-forum
shopping it submitted was false and perjurious; (3) the case should also be
dismissed on the ground of litis
pendentia as the issues herein are already subsumed in the annulment case pending
with another branch; (4) the court has not validly acquired jurisdiction over
the persons of respondents for lack of service of summons, the Officers Return
dated December 4, 2006 clearly stated that the summons were unserved and which
failed to state the facts and circumstances showing the impossibility of
personal service of summons upon the respondents, and neither did petitioner
seek the issuance of an alias summons; (5) the case is already moot because
title had already been consolidated in the name of AUB which may no longer be
restrained from exercising rights of ownership over the foreclosed property; the pendency of a civil
case for the nullity of the mortgage document is not a legal bar to foreclosure
by the creditor-mortgagee upon the default of the debtor-mortgagor; (6) even
assuming there was a defect in the notarization of the REM, it is not a ground
to invalidate the foreclosure sale or hold in abeyance the consolidation of
title in favor of AUB; (7) based on the facts alleged in the complaint, it is
clear that AUB did not act in bad faith nor abused its rights when it caused
the foreclosure of the subject property; (8) petitioners claims that the
unpaid obligations of RMNSI is not secured by the REM and that no demand for
payment was made on SPI, are both irrelevant and downright perjurious and
misleading; and (9) even on the basis of the allegations in the complaint and
its annexes, the same fail to state a cause of action, individual respondents cannot
be held liable for damages as they have not acted with bad faith or fraud in
connection with the REM; in any event, apart from the demand letter sent to
RMNSI, a demand letter was also sent to SPI at the address indicated by
petitioner itself in the complaint, a copy of said demand letter addressed to
Radiomarine Network (Smartnet), Inc. doing business as Smartnet Philippines
and Smartnet Philippines, Inc. at Building 8359, Zambales Hi-way cor. Bataan
Rd., Upper Cubi, Subic Bay Freeport Zone.
Respondents further averred that contrary to petitioners
allegation, The Foreign Post is a newspaper of general circulation, having
been accredited as such by the Office of the Executive Judge in the Order dated
Finally, respondents argued that the three (3) months
period prescribed by the General Banking Law of 2000 is a valid limitation on
the right of redemption, which is the exception rather than the general
rule. This Court has already upheld the
restriction on the exercise of the right of redemption in Landrito, Jr. v. Court of Appeals[14].
On
motion of respondents, Civil Case No. 06-1032 was consolidated with Civil Case
No. 03-045. Prior to the consolidation, respondents
moved to dismiss[15]
with prejudice the two cases on the grounds of forum shopping, and that no
jurisdiction was acquired by the RTC in Civil Case No. 03-045 for failure to
pay the proper docket and other legal fees.
In
a Joint Order[16]
dated
Petitioner
again filed separate appeals before the CA, which were docketed under only one
case (CA-G.R. CV No. 90418).
By
Decision[18]
dated
The
CA found that the twin complaints asked for a common relief: nullification of
the REM over the
The
CA also concurred with the RTC Branch
Petitioner
filed two separate motions for reconsideration which the CA likewise denied in
its Resolution[19]
dated
The Consolidated Petitions and Parties Arguments
Petitioner
filed before this Court two separate
petitions through different counsels assailing the same CA decision dismissing
their two appeals and resolution denying their twin motions for
reconsideration.
The
core issue presented is whether petitioner was guilty of forum shopping when it
successively filed Civil Case No. 03-045 and Civil Case No. 06-1032.
Petitioner
argues that there was no forum shopping involved because contrary to the CAs view,
a judgment in either of the two cases will not amount to res judicata in the other, stating that there are two probable
outcomes for each case; thus, the REM may be declared either null and void or
valid, and the extrajudicial foreclosure may likewise be declared either null
and void or valid. Petitioner then
posits that a judgment in Civil Case No. 03-045 that the REM is valid will not
preclude it from filing a separate case for the annulment of the foreclosure
proceeding; petitioners claims on the irregularities in the extrajudicial
foreclosure when proven would still result in its nullification, even if the
REM is declared valid in the first case.
Similarly, a judgment annulling the extrajudicial foreclosure would not
bar a separate complaint for the annulment of a spurious and falsified
mortgage.
Petitioner
further notes that it did not fail to disclose as in fact it asserted the
pendency of Civil Case No. 03-
On
the other hand, respondents maintain that the CA was correct in holding that
petitioner is guilty of forum shopping
as any ruling of either court on the identical issue of falsity of the
REM would amount to res judicata in
the other case. They also stress that forum shopping already exists when the
cases involve the same or related causes and the same or substantially the same
reliefs. Invoking stare decisis, respondents cite the final judgment rendered by this
Court in G.R. No. 190231 involving the Laguna Properties which also involved
the same parties and transactions as in the instant case. But even before the said ruling, respondents
point out that it was already settled that there is forum shopping if two
actions boil down to a single issue, although the issues and reliefs prayed for
were stated differently, because the final disposition of one would constitute res judicata in the other, citing Prubankers Association v. Prudential Bank
& Trust Company[20].
Another case[21]
was cited by respondents holding that there is forum shopping when the remedies sought by the petitioner had the
possibility of resulting in conflicting rulings, which supports the CAs
observations.
Respondents
underscore the deliberate and contumacious forum shopping committed by
petitioner not only before the trial courts but also before the CA and this Court. They called
attention to petitioners filing of two notices of appeal, institution of two appeals and submission of
two appeal briefs from one and the same
RTC decision; two motions for
reconsideration and; now, the herein
identical petitions filed in this Court against the same principal party,
AUB. Just like in the identical actions
before the RTC, petitioner did not seasonably report the second petition in
G.R. No. 195561. In fact, G.R. No.
195546 was consolidated with G.R. No. 195561 because this Court already found
that they arose from the same essential facts and assail the same decision and
resolution of the Court of Appeals to avoid conflicting decisions.[22]
The Courts Ruling
The petitions must fail.
There is forum shopping when the following elements are present: (a)
identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests
in both actions[;] (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the
relief being founded on the same facts[;] and (c) the identity of the two
preceding particulars[,] 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.[23] The essence of forum shopping is the filing
of multiple suits involving the same
parties for the same cause of action, either
simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable
judgment, through means other than by appeal or certiorari.[24]
All the
foregoing elements are present in this case.
There can
be no dispute that the prayer for relief in the two cases was based on the same
attendant facts in the execution of REMs over petitioners properties in favor
of AUB. While the extrajudicial
foreclosure of mortgage, consolidation of ownership in AUB and issuance of
title in the latters name were set forth only in the second case (Civil Case
No. 06-1032), these were simply the expected consequences of the REM
transaction in the first case (Civil Case No. 03-045). These eventualities are precisely what
petitioner sought to avert when it filed the first case. Undeniably then, the injunctive relief sought
against the extrajudicial foreclosure, as well as the cancellation of the new
title in the name of the creditor-mortgagee AUB, were all premised on the
alleged nullity of the REM due to its allegedly fraudulent and irregular
execution and registration the same facts set forth in the first case. In both cases, petitioner asserted its right
as owner of the property subject of the REM, while AUB invoked the rights of a
foreclosing creditor-mortgagee.
There is
also identity of parties notwithstanding that in the first case, only one bank
officer (Co), the notary public (Pelicano) and the Register of Deeds were
impleaded along with AUB as defendants, whereas in the second case, AUB and its
two officers (Chan and Del Mundo), along with the RTC Clerk of Court
(Escasinas, Jr.), Sheriff (Magsajo) and the Register of Deeds of Makati City
(Ortile) were the named defendants. The
parties in both cases are substantially the same as they represent the same interests and offices/positions, and who
were impleaded in their respective capacities with corresponding
liabilities/duties under the claims asserted.
With
respect to identity of cause of action, a cause of action is defined in Section
2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court as the act or omission by which a party
violates the right of another. This Court has laid down the test in determining whether or
not the causes of action in the first and second cases are identical, to wit:
would the same evidence support and establish both the present and former cause
of action? If so, the former recovery is a bar; if otherwise, it does not stand
in the way of the former action.[25]
In the first case, petitioner alleged the
fraudulent and irregular execution and registration of the REM which violated
its right as owner who did not consent thereto, while in the second case
petitioner cited further violation of its right as owner when AUB foreclosed
the property, consolidated its ownership and obtained a new TCT in its
name. Considering that the aforesaid violations of petitioners
right as owner in the two cases both hinge on the binding effect of the REM, i.e., both cases will rise or fall on
the issue of the validity of the REM, it follows that the same evidence will
support and establish the first and second causes of action. The procedural infirmities or non-compliance
with legal requirements for
extrajudicial foreclosure raised in the second case were but additional
grounds in support of the injunctive relief sought against the foreclosure which
was, in the first place, illegal on account of the mortgage contracts nullity. Evidently, petitioner
never relied solely on the alleged procedural irregularities in the
extrajudicial foreclosure when it sought the reliefs in the second case.
On this point, it is relevant to quote
similar findings of this Court in G.R. No. 191388, which case involved,
contrary to petitioners asseveration and as clearly shown in the factual
antecedents herein set forth, the same parties, issues and causes of action founded
on the same real estate mortgage transaction albeit covering properties of
petitioner located in another province (Laguna), to wit:
The cause of action in
the earlier Annulment Case is the alleged nullity of the REM (due to its
allegedly falsified or spurious nature) which is allegedly violative of
Goodlands right to the mortgaged property. It serves as the basis for the
prayer for the nullification of the REM. The Injunction Case involves the same cause of action, inasmuch as it also
invokes the nullity of the REM as the basis for the prayer for the
nullification of the extrajudicial foreclosure and for injunction against
consolidation of title. While the main
relief sought in the Annulment Case (nullification of the REM) is ostensibly
different from the main relief sought in the Injunction Case (nullification of
the extrajudicial foreclosure and injunction against consolidation of title),
the cause of action which serves as the basis for the said reliefs remains the
same the alleged nullity of the REM. Thus, what is involved here is the
third way of committing forum shopping, i.e.,
filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action, but with different
prayers. As previously held by the Court, there
is still forum shopping even if the reliefs prayed for in the two cases are
different, so long as both cases raise substantially the same issues.
There can be no determination of the validity of
the extrajudicial foreclosure and the propriety of injunction in the Injunction
Case without necessarily ruling on the validity of the REM, which is already
the subject of the Annulment Case. The identity of the
causes of action in the two cases entails that the validity of the mortgage
will be ruled upon in both, and creates a possibility that the two rulings will
conflict with each other. This is precisely what is sought to be avoided by the
rule against forum shopping.
The substantial identity of the two cases remains
even if the parties should add different grounds or legal theories for the
nullity of the REM or should alter the designation or form of the action. The well-entrenched
rule is that 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.[26] (Emphasis supplied.)
In the
above-cited case, the Court also called attention to its earlier ruling in G.R.
No. 190231 which involved substantially the same parties, and which constitutes
another reason why the petition must fail, stating that [t]he issue that
Goodland committed deliberate forum shopping when it successively filed the
Annulment and Injunction Cases against AUB and its officer was decided with
finality therein. This ruling is
conclusive on the petitioners and Goodland considering that they are
substantially the same parties in that earlier case.[27]
Given the similar factual
circumstances in the institution by herein petitioner of Civil Case Nos. 03-045 and 06-1032 (Makati
Property case) before the RTC, with those two cases (Civil Case Nos. B-6242 and
B-7110) subject of the petitions in G.R. Nos. 190231 and 191388 involving the
Laguna Properties covered by the same real estate mortgage transaction between
AUB and petitioner, the findings and conclusion of this Court in G.R. No.190231
on the factual issue of whether the petitioner engaged in willful and
deliberate forum shopping should be
controlling, to wit:
Rule 7, Section 5 of the
Rules of Court requires every litigant to notify the court of the filing or
pendency of a complaint involving the same or similar action or claim within
five days of learning of that fact. While both Civil Case Nos. B-6242 and
B-7110 were raffled to the same court, the RTC of Bian, Laguna, Branch 25, respondent did not report the filing of
Civil Case No. B-
Petitioner,
however, insists that the above ruling is inapplicable to it considering that
the pendency of Civil Case No. 06-1032 was in fact disclosed in the Verification
and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping appended to its complaint in Civil Case
No. 06-1032. The said certification
reads:
x x x x
3. The plaintiff has not heretofore commenced any other action or filed any claim,
involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency
and, to the best of my knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending
therein.
There are however pending cases related
to the instant case, namely: Goodland Company, Inc. vs. Asia United Bank,
et al., Civil Case No. 03-045, Regional Trial Court, Branch 133, Makati
City; Goodland Company, Inc. vs.
Asia United Bank, et al.. Civil Case No. B-6242, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 25,Bian, Laguna, People of the
Philippines vs. Christine Chan, et al., Crim. Case No. 332313 ,
Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 64, Makati City; and Rafael H. Galvez vs. Christine Chan, et al. , I.S. No. 03-73,
Department of Justice, Manila.
x x x x[29]
We find that the above certification still fell
short of the requirement of the rule on forum shopping. While petitioner disclosed the pendency of
Civil Case No. 03-045 it filed earlier, it qualified the nature of the said
case by lumping it together with other pending
related cases. Petitioners
simultaneous attestation that it has not
commenced any other action or filed any claim, involving the same issues in any
court implies that the pending related cases mentioned therein do not involve the same issues as those
raised by it in the subsequently filed Civil Case No. 06-1032. Consequently, petitioner has filed a
certificate that is partly false and misleading because Civil Case No.
06-1032 squarely raised the issue of the nullity of the REM, which was in fact
the principal issue in Civil Case No. 03-045.
Moreover,
there was no showing that petitioner promptly reported to the RTC Branch
On a last note,
the Court cannot countenance plaintiffs violation of its undertaking as
regards compliance of the prohibition against forum shopping. In plaintiffs Certification as to Non-Forum
Shopping embodied in its Complaint in Civil Case No. 03-045, plaintiff is duty
bound to report, within five days from
knowledge, the fact that a similar action or proceeding involving the same
issues have been filed or is pending. The records are barren of any showing that
plaintiff reported in Civil Case No. 03-045 the fact that it subsequently filed Civil Case No. 06-1032. Under Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, the plaintiff is required under oath to certify, among others,
his undertaking to report to the court the fact of filing of a similar case,
failing which shall be cause for the dismissal of the case, to wit:
(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.
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.
The totality of circumstances considered,
plaintiffs forum shopping committed in multifarious fashion cannot but be
willful and deliberate. Hence,
consistent with established rule and jurisprudence, the same is punishable by
and results in the summary dismissal of the actions filed. Both
Civil Case No. 03-045 and Civil Case No.06-1032 are therefore dismissed with
prejudice. x x x[30] (Emphasis
supplied.)
The CA concurred with the
RTC that petitioners act of forum shopping was deliberate and malicious
considering that it knowingly filed Civil Case No. 06-1032 despite the pendency
of Civil Case No. 03-045. The appellate
court said that petitioner unscrupulously took advantage of the availability of
competent tribunals and tried its luck in different fora for a favorable
result.
We concur with the CAs finding that a decision in either case will amount
to res judicata in the other
considering that both courts were called upon to rule on the same issue of
whether the REM was falsified. Indeed,
the possibility of conflicting rulings or decisions rendered by different
courts on such issue militates against petitioners posture that it never
intended to conceal the subsequent filing of Civil Case No. 06-1032.
Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a
final judgment in one case will amount to res
judicata in the action under consideration.[31] Litis
pendentia is a Latin term, which literally means a pending suit and is
variously referred to in some decisions as lis
pendens and auter action pendant.
As a ground for the dismissal of a civil action, it refers to the situation
where two actions are pending between the same parties for the same cause of
action, so that one of them becomes unnecessary and vexatious. It is based on
the policy against multiplicity of suits.[32] 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.[33]
All the elements of litis pendentia are present in this case. As correctly found by both RTC and CA, any
judgment rendered either in Civil Case No. 03-045 or Civil Case No. 06-1032 on
the principal issue regarding the validity of the REM would amount to res judicata on the other. Contrary to petitioners submissions, a
determination by the RTC of whether petitioner is entitled to the injunctive
relief in Civil Case No. 06-1032 necessarily entails a ruling on the validity
of the REM raised therein by petitioner, which pronouncement may run counter to
the separate findings and conclusion in Civil Case No. 03-045 on the same
issue. In the same manner, the reliefs
prayed for in Civil Case No. 03-045 for the cancellation of the REM and its
registration cannot be granted without the court first ruling on the validity
of the REM; if the court rules in the affirmative, it would in turn defeat the
injunctive relief sought in Civil Case No. 06-1032.
The foregoing scenario is precisely what the
prohibition on forum shopping seeks to avoid. What is truly important to consider in
determining whether forum shopping exists
or not is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigants by a party who
asks different courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same or
related causes and/or 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 issues.[34]
The Court
need not say more. Petitioners brazen and
deliberate acts of repeated forum shopping
in all stages of litigation are written all over this case, as well as in the
two other identical cases already decided by this Court. No reversible error was thus committed by the
CA when it affirmed the RTCs joint order of dismissal with prejudice.
WHEREFORE, the petitions for review
on certiorari in G.R. Nos. 195546 and 195561 are both DENIED. The Decision dated
With
double costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MARTIN S.
VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
|
|
WE CONCUR: RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice Chairperson |
||
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
|
|
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE Associate Justice |
||
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, 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 |
* Designated additional
member per Special Order No. 1207 dated
[1] Rollo (G.R. No. 195546), pp. 60-79.
Penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier with Associate Justices
Rebecca De Guia-
[2]
[3] Business name registered with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), rollo (G.R. No. 195561), pp. 159-160.
[4] Factual antecedents with respect to the Laguna Properties were culled from this Courts Decisions in Asia United Bank v. Goodland Company, Inc., G.R. No. 190231, December 8, 2010, 637 SCRA 691 and Asia United Bank v. Goodland Company, Inc., G.R. No. 191388, March 9, 2011, 645 SCRA 205.
[5] Rollo (G.R. No. 195546), pp. 689-705. Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14] G.R. No. 133079,
[15] Rollo (G.R. No. 195546) pp. 380-402.
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20] G.R. No. 131247,
[21] Madara v. Perello,
G.R. No. 172449,
[22] Rollo (G.R. No. 195546), p. 728.
[23] Mondragon Leisure and Resorts Corporation v. United Coconut Planters Bank, G.R. No. 154187, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 585, 590, citing Saura v. Saura, Jr., 372 Phil. 337, 349 (1999).
[24] Melo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123686, November 16, 1999, 318 SCRA 94, 100; Ligon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127683, August 7, 1998, 294 SCRA 73, 88, citing Washington Distillers, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118151, August 22, 1996, 260 SCRA 821, 835.
[25] Villanueva v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 163433, August 22, 2011, 655 SCRA 707, 714, citing Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) v. Group Management Corporation (GMC), G.R. Nos. 167000 & 169971, June 8, 2011, 651 SCRA 279, 313.
[26] Asia United Bank v. Goodland Company, Inc. , G.R. No. 191388, March 9, 2011, 645 SCRA 205, 216-217.
[27]
[28] Asia United Bank v. Goodland Company, Inc., G.R. No. 190231, December 8, 2010, 637 SCRA 691, 696-697.
[29] Rollo (G.R. No. 195546), p. 106.
[30]
[31] Spouses Marasigan v. Chevron Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 184015, February 8, 2012, p. 12, citing Benedicto v. Lacson, G.R. No. 141508, May 5, 2010, 620 SCRA 82, 98.
[32] Id., citing Dotmatrix Trading v. Legaspi, G.R. No. 155622, October 26, 2009, 604 SCRA 431, 436.
[33]
[34] Municipality of Taguig v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142619, September 13, 2005, 469
SCRA 588, 595, citing First Philippine International Bank v. Court
of Appeals, G.R.
No. 115849, January 24, 1996, 252 SCRA 259, 289 and Borromeo
v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 73592, March 15, 1996, 255 SCRA
75, 84.