Andresons Group, Inc. v. Court Of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Willie Denate entered into an agency agreement with petitioner The Andresons Group, Inc. for the sale of distilled spirits. Private respondents filed a civil action for collection of sum of money against petitioner, alleging entitlement to P882,107.95 in commissions. A month later, petitioner filed its own complaint for collection of sum of money with damages against private respondents, alleging that private respondents owed it P1,618,467.98 after deducting commissions and remittances. Procedural History: Private respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss petitioner's complaint on the ground of lis pendens, citing the earlier case filed in Davao City. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kalookan City denied the motion, finding that while the Davao case involved the same parties and cause of action, the Kalookan court had acquired jurisdiction over the parties as defendants had received summons, whereas summons had not yet been served in the Davao case. Private respondents' Motion for Reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals set aside the RTC's order. The Petition: Petitioner questions the Court of Appeals' decision which set aside the RTC orders denying the Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lis pendens.
Issue(s)
Should the action in the Kalookan RTC be dismissed on the ground of lis pendens?
Ruling
The Court holds in the affirmative. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
Should the action in the Kalookan RTC be dismissed on the ground of lis pendens? Yes. The Court reiterated the requisites for the defense of lis pendens: (1) identity of parties; (2) substantial identity in the cause of action and reliefs sought; and (3) identity such that any judgment in one case would amount to res judicata in the other. All these requisites were found to be present in the instant case, as both actions involved the same parties suing each other for sums of money arising from their contract of agency, with the relief prayed for based on the same facts and asserting identical rights. The principle of lis pendens is a sanction of public policy against multiplicity of suits, preventing unnecessary and vexatious litigation. The argument that the Davao court had not yet acquired jurisdiction because summons had not been served is untenable. A civil action is commenced by the filing of a complaint, and the rule on lis pendens does not require prior service of summons or that the pending action be the earlier one. The criterion for abatement is which action is the more appropriate one or which court is in a better position to serve the interests of justice. Considering that both cases involved sums of money collected in and around Davao, the Davao Court was deemed in a better position to hear and try the case due to the location of witnesses and evidence.
Main Doctrine
The pendency of another action between the same parties for the same cause of action, regardless of the stage of the proceedings or whether summons has been served in the later case, is a ground for dismissal under the principle of lis pendens, as it serves the public policy against multiplicity of suits.