Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 143217 December 14, 2005
AMANDO S. SAN JUAN, CARMEN V. PINEDA, NISSAN COMMONWEALTH, INC., METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, INC. and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY, Petitioners,
vs.
MIGUEL L. ARAMBULO, SR., Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the Decision1 dated November 29, 1999 and Resolution2 dated April 24, 2000 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 56481, entitled "Miguel L. Arambulo, Sr. vs. Amando S. San Juan et al."
The factual antecedents as borne by the records are:
On April 12, 1996, Miguel L. Arambulo, Sr., respondent, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 104, Quezon City, a complaint for damages with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction,3 docketed as Civil Case No. Q-96-27127. Impleaded as defendants were Sunny Motors Sales, Inc. and Amando San Juan, one of herein petitioners.
Before Amando could file an answer, respondent, on July 2, 1996, filed a motion to withdraw his complaint which was granted in an Order dated October 8, 1996. This Order became final and executory.
On July 2, 1996, or on the day when respondent filed a motion to withdraw his complaint in Civil Case No. Q-96-27127, he filed with the RTC, Branch 216, Quezon City, Civil Case No. Q-96-27964 for cancellation of title, reconveyance, damages with prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction4 against Amando San Juan and the other above-named petitioners.
Instead of filing an answer, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of litis pendentia and forum shopping. Eventually, Branch 216 issued an Order dated October 8, 1996 dismissing the complaint on the ground of forum- shopping. Respondent then filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied in an Order dated January 23, 1997.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision dated November 29, 1999 reversing the trial court’s Order dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Court, in holding that respondent did not violate the rule against forum-shopping, held that Civil Cases Nos. Q-96-27127 and Q-96-27964 involve different parties and raise distinct causes of action, subject matter and issues.
From the said Decision, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. Petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals erred in declaring that respondent did not resort to forum-shopping.
The decisive issue posed by petitioners is whether respondent’s filing of the complaint for cancellation of title, reconveyance, damages with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-96-27964, in the RTC, Branch 216, Quezon City, constitutes forum-shopping. It may be recalled that on the same day he filed this complaint, he moved to withdraw his complaint in Civil Case No. Q-96-27127, which was granted on October 8, 1996 by the RTC, Branch 104.
The petition is bereft of merit.
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. A party violates the rule against forum shopping if the elements of litis pendentia are present; or if a final judgment in one case would amount to res judicata in the other. 5
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, 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."6
As correctly found by the Court of Appeals, "the two complaints refer to different cases," thus:
"(1) As to parties – In Civil Case No. 96-27127 for Damages with Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, the plaintiff is Miguel S. Arambulo, Sr. against defendants Sunny Motors Inc. and Amando S. San Juan; whereas in Civil Case NO. 96-27964 for Cancellation of Title, Reconveyance, Damages and Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, the plaintiff is Miguel S. Arambulo, Sr. against defendants Amando S. San Juan, Carmen V. Pineda, Nissan Commonwealth, Inc., Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company and the Register of Deeds of Quezon City;
(2) As to facts and circumstances – In the former case, the plaintiff-appellant alleged that the defendants-appellees encroached on a certain portion of the former’s lot described as Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-110304 (223887) and as a consequence of which, he sued for damages because he was allegedly deprived of its use and enjoyment (Complaint for Damages, p. 2; Record, p. 45); whereas in the latter case, plaintiff-appellant alleged that he is the lawful and registered owner of a parcel of land located at Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-110304 (223877) identified as lot 43-C-10 of the subdivision plan Psd-36810 issued by the Register of Deeds, Quezon City (Complaint for Cancellation of Title, p. 2; Record, p. 4); that plaintiff-appellant found out that a substantial portion of his lot identified as Lot 43-C-10 covered by said title was maliciously and fraudulently included as appearing on the face of Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. N-136482 and N-136483 (formerly TCT Nos. 121402 and 121403) of defendants-appellees Amando S. San Juan and Carmen V. Pineda, thus, the Register of Deeds of Quezon City was impleaded as a necessary party thereto; and since the subject properties owned by defendants-appellees were mortgaged to MetroBank, the latter was also impleaded for being a necessary party (Record, pp. 2-5);
(3) As to cause of action – In the former case, it involves damages due to the alleged encroachment of Amando San Juan to plaintiff-appellant’s lot; whereas in the latter case, it involves the unlawful and/or illegal inclusion of a substantial portion of plaintiff-appellant’s lot in the description of the Transfer Certificate of Title of defendants Amando San Juan and Carmen V. Pineda;
(4) As to subject matter and issues – In the former case, it involves a question of award of damages due to the alleged encroachment; whereas in the latter case, it involves a question of ownership thus invoking a remedy of cancellation of title, reconveyance with damages."
From the foregoing discussions, the two cases clearly raised distinct cause of action and issues considering that the facts and circumstances involve therein are different. In short, there are no identical causes of action, subject matter and issue in the said two cases.
Importantly, the Complaint for Damages (Civil Case No. Q-96-27127) was withdrawn (Record, p. 93) by the plaintiff-appellant before the Complaint for Cancellation of Title and Damages (Civil Case No. Q-96-27964) was filed (Record, pp. 58, 69, 90, 96), in accordance with Section 1, Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure which provides:
‘SECTION 1. Dismissal upon notice by plaintiff. – A complaint may be dismissed by the plaintiff by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service of the answer or of a motion for summary judgment. Upon such notice being filed, the court shall issue an order confirming the dismissal. Unless otherwise stated in the notice, the dismissal is without prejudice, except that a notice operates as an adjudication upon the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in a competent court an action based on or including the same claim.’
thus, forum shopping cannot be said to have existed in the case at bench.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Omnibus Order dated October 8, 1996 and the Order dated January 23, 1997 are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE and the Complaint in Civil Case No. Q-96-27964 is REINSTATED. The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 216 is ordered to proceed with the trial of this case and terminate the proceeding with dispatch.
Let the original record of this case be remanded to the said court for the said purpose.
SO ORDERED."
Moreover, in Young vs. Keng Seng,7 we held that forum shopping is committed by a party who, having received an adverse judgment in one forum, seeks another opinion in another court, other than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari.
Here, there is no adverse decision against respondent in Civil Case No. Q-96-27127. In fact, upon respondent’s motion, the RTC, Branch 104 dismissed the complaint for damages with prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction pursuant to Section 1, Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.8 We, therefore, agree with the Court of Appeals in holding that the trial court (RTC, Branch 216, Quezon City) erred in dismissing respondent’s complaint in Civil Case No. Q-96-27964 on the ground of forum-shopping.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 56481 are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
|
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Associate Justice
Chairman |
|
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice |
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice |
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice |
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Associate Justice
Chairman, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairman's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR.
Chief Justice
Footnotes
1 Penned by Justice B.A. Adefuin-Dela Cruz (retired) and concurred in by Justice Fermin A. Martin, Jr. (retired) and Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr, (now Court Administrator), Annex "A" of the Petition for Review, Rollo at 19-26.
2 Annex "D", id. at 30-31.
3 The complaint alleges that respondent is the registered owner of lot 43-C-10 situated at Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-110304 of the Registry of Deeds, same city. Subsequently, respondent found that Sunny Motors Sales, Inc. and petitioner Amando San Juan encroached on a portion his lot, thereby, depriving him of its possession. This prompted respondent to file the above complaint praying for an award of damages.
4 The complaint alleges that respondent is the registered owner of a lot 43-C-10 situated at Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-110304 of the Registry of Deeds, same city. Subsequently, respondent found that a substantial portion of the above lot was maliciously and fraudulently included and covered by Transfer Certificates of Title No. N-136482 and N-136483 in the names of Amando S. San Juan and Carmen V. Pineda. Respondent thus prays for the cancellation of title, reconveyance and damages.
5 Mondragon Leisure and Resorts Corporation vs. United Coconut Planters Bank, G.R. No. 154187, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 585; Davao Sunrise Investment and Development Corporation, et al .vs. Spouses Robert Alan Limso and Nancy Lee Limso, G.R. No. 162516, Resolution dated July 13, 2005.
6 Ibid.
7 G.R. No. 143464, March 5, 2003, 398 SCRA 629, 636, citing Executive Secretary vs. Gordon, 298 SCRA 736 (1998).
8 SECTION 1. Dismissal upon notice by plaintiff. – A complaint may be dismissed by the plaintiff by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service of the answer or of a motion for summary judgment. Upon such notice being filed, the court shall issue an order confirming the dismissal. Unless otherwise stated in the notice, the dismissal is without prejudice, except that a notice operates as an adjudication upon the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in a competent court an action based on or including the same claim.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
