Salacup v. Filipinas Mills, Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Julio Salacup and respondent Filipinas Mills, Inc. entered into a contract for the sale of a rice thresher. The parties had a dispute regarding the purchase price and the quantity of palay to be delivered as payment. Respondent claimed the price was P82,500 payable in 1,500 cavans of palay, while petitioner asserted the price was P45,000 payable in palay. Procedural History: On April 5, 1976, petitioner filed a complaint (Civil Case No. III-194) before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Isabela, Branch III, for recovery of alleged overpayment, averring delivery of 1,058 cavans valued at P51,557 against a thresher price of P45,000, resulting in an overpayment of P6,557. On June 7, 1978, respondent filed a complaint (Civil Case No. 115997) before the CFI of Manila, Branch XXXIV, for breach of contract and collection of undelivered palay (442 cavans) or its value, P24,310, asserting petitioner only delivered 1,058 cavans out of the agreed 1,500 cavans. The Petition: Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 115997 on the ground of lis pendens, arguing that another action was pending between the same parties for the same cause. Respondent opposed, claiming no valid service of summons and complaint was made upon it. The CFI of Manila denied the motion to dismiss and the subsequent motion for reconsideration. Petitioner then filed a special civil action for certiorari with preliminary injunction before the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the pendency of Civil Case No. III-194 in the Court of First Instance of Isabela constitutes lis pendens, warranting the dismissal of Civil Case No. 115997 filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila. Whether the service of summons is a prerequisite for the existence of lis pendens.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the respondent Judge denying the motion to dismiss and the motion for reconsideration, and ordered the dismissal of Civil Case No. 115997. The Court ruled that lis pendens exists and that the lower court erred in not granting the motion to dismiss.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of lis pendens: The Court reiterated the requisites for lis pendens: (1) identity of parties or those representing the same interests; (2) identity of rights asserted and prayed for, founded on the same facts; and (3) identity in both cases such that the judgment in one would amount to res judicata in the other. The Court found these requisites present in the two cases. Firstly, the parties were the same, with Ben Tan being a representative of Filipinas Mills, Inc. in the first case. Secondly, the first case sought recovery of overpayment for the thresher, while the second case sought collection of undelivered palay for the same thresher's purchase price, establishing the identity of rights asserted and prayed for, founded on the same facts. Thirdly, a judgment in either case would be determinative of the parties' rights and would constitute res judicata in the other. The Court emphasized that Civil Case No. III-194 was filed on April 5, 1976, significantly earlier than Civil Case No. 115997 filed on June 7, 1978, meaning the latter case was filed while the former was already pending. On the issue of service of summons: The Court found no merit in respondent's contention that lis pendens does not obtain because of alleged lack of valid service of summons. Citing Section 6, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court and the case of Pampanga Bus Company, Inc. vs. Ocfemia, the Court held that a civil action is commenced by the filing of the complaint with the court. Furthermore, referencing Sotelo vs. Dizon, et. al., the Court clarified that under Section 389 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a civil action is deemed legally commenced from the date of filing and docketing of the complaint, irrespective of the issuance and service of summons. The fact that the respondent did not know of the prior filing when it received summons was deemed immaterial, as the prior action was indeed pending at the time the second action was filed.
Main Doctrine
The pendency of another action between the same parties for the same cause of action, where the judgment in one would amount to res judicata in the other, is a valid ground for dismissal under the principle of lis pendens, regardless of the issuance and service of summons, as an action is commenced by the filing of the complaint.