Dasmariñas Village Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner, Dasmariñas Village Association, Inc. (DVA), and private respondent, Colegio San Agustin, Inc. (CSA), had an agreement regarding CSA's payment of village dues, which evolved from an exemption to CSA becoming a "special member" and eventually proposing to pay an amount equivalent to 50% of the village dues collectible from residents, an arrangement DVA accepted and complied with from 1988 to 1991. However, in 1992, DVA sent CSA an assessment of P550,000 with a "No Discount for 1992" notation, disregarding the 50% agreement, and also implemented security measures prohibiting access to some village gates for vehicles without DVA stickers and barring entry after 6:00 p.m. for such vehicles. 2. Procedural History: On June 24, 1994, CSA filed a petition for "Declaratory Relief and Damages with Preliminary Injunction" (Civil Case No. 94-2062) with the RTC of Makati, seeking determination of proper membership dues and enjoining DVA's security policy, which the RTC granted by dismissing CSA's petition. CSA appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 48733) on December 16, 1994. Subsequently, on September 9, 1995, DVA denied entry to vehicles going to CSA's campus for review classes unless they had DVA stickers, despite prior approval for unhampered vehicular movement, leading CSA to file another complaint for "injunction and damages" (Civil Case No. 95-1396) on September 13, 1995. DVA moved to dismiss this second case, citing litis pendentia and forum shopping, but the RTC denied the motion. DVA elevated this denial to the Court of Appeals via a petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus, which the CA dismissed, ruling that no litis pendentia existed due to the lack of identity of parties and reliefs, and that CSA was not guilty of forum shopping. 3. The Petition: DVA seeks the reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision, raising the sole issue of whether Civil Case No. 95-1396 should have been barred by Civil Case No. 94-2062 on the ground of litis pendentia.
Issue(s)
Whether Civil Case No. 95-1396 should be barred by Civil Case No. 94-2062 on the ground of litis pendentia. Whether private respondent is guilty of forum shopping. Whether the denial of petitioner's motion to dismiss is a proper subject for a petition for certiorari.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit, and the Court of Appeals' decision is affirmed. Costs are against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of litis pendentia: The Court reiterated the requisites for litis pendentia: (1) identity of parties, or at least parties representing the same interests; (2) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, founded on the same facts; and (3) identity with respect to the two preceding particulars such that any judgment in one case would amount to res judicata in the other. The Court found that while there was an apparent identity of parties (considering that the addition or elimination of parties does not alter the situation), the other two elements were not present. Civil Case No. 94-2062 concerned the alleged arbitrary increase of membership fees and the violation of agreements regarding car stickers and access, seeking to enjoin DVA from enforcing or increasing dues and to accord vehicles with CSA's sticker the same schedule as residents. In contrast, Civil Case No. 95-1396 arose from the specific incident of September 9, 1995, where DVA denied entry to vehicles without DVA stickers for review classes, despite prior approval. The Court emphasized that the causes of action were different: the first case was founded on alleged violations of agreements regarding membership dues and car stickers from 1969 to 1989, while the second case pertained to damages suffered in 1995 due to DVA's refusal to grant entry to review participants, despite a subsequent agreement on August 28, 1995. Consequently, a judgment in one case would not amount to res judicata in the other. On the issue of forum shopping: The Court held that for forum shopping to exist, both actions must involve the same transactions, same essential facts and circumstances, and raise identical causes of action, subject matter, and issues, which are the same elements required for litis pendentia. Since the requisites of litis pendentia were not met, private respondent could not be held guilty of forum shopping. The Court cited International Container Terminal Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and Philippine Woman's Christian Temperance Union, Inc. v. Abiertas House of Friendship, Inc. & Radiance School, Inc. to support this conclusion. On the propriety of certiorari: The Court reiterated its consistent ruling that an order denying a motion to dismiss is merely an interlocutory order. Such an order is not appealable and cannot be the subject of a petition for review on certiorari. The proper procedure is to file an answer, proceed to trial, and if the decision is adverse, to reiterate the issue on appeal from the final judgment. The Court found that petitioner failed to show that the trial court's action was tainted with grave abuse of discretion, making the petition for certiorari improper. The Court cited Españo Sr. v. Court of Appeals.
Main Doctrine
The requisites for litis pendentia, namely, identity of parties, identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, and identity of the two preceding particulars such that any judgment in one would amount to res judicata in the other, must be present for a second case to be dismissed on the ground of pendency of another action. Furthermore, a denial of a motion to dismiss is merely an interlocutory order and cannot be a basis for certiorari absent grave abuse of discretion.