Melo v. Coronel
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Private respondent Arsenia Coronel mortgaged a parcel of land to secure a loan. Due to non-payment, the bank foreclosed the mortgage, and the property was sold to petitioners Sps. Apolinario and Lilia Melo and Julia Barreto as the highest bidders. Petitioners subsequently filed a petition for the ex-parte issuance of a writ of possession. 2. Procedural History: In response to the petition for a writ of possession, private respondent filed a complaint for injunction against the petitioners. The petitioners moved to dismiss this complaint on grounds of litis pendentia, forum shopping, and failure to attach a certification of non-forum shopping. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 57, denied the motion to dismiss. Upon certiorari, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's order. 3. The Petition: Petitioners seek review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals' resolution, raising two issues: (1) whether private respondent was guilty of forum shopping by filing her complaint for injunction while a petition for a writ of possession was pending in another branch of the same court, and (2) whether private respondent substantially complied with the rule requiring a certification of non-forum shopping with initiatory pleadings. The Supreme Court ultimately found that while there was no forum shopping, the mandatory requirement of a certification of non-forum shopping was not met, and subsequent compliance did not cure the defect, leading to the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice.
Issue(s)
Whether private respondent is guilty of forum shopping by filing her complaint with preliminary injunction before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, Angeles City, when there was a Petition for Ex-Parte Issuance of Writ of Possession pending before Branch 60 of the same court. Whether there was substantial compliance by private respondent with the rule requiring the submission of a certification of non-forum shopping together with initiatory pleadings.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the resolution of the Court of Appeals, set aside the orders of the Regional Trial Court, and dismissed the complaint filed against petitioners without prejudice.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of forum shopping: The Court held that there was no forum shopping in this case because the petition for the issuance of a writ of possession and the complaint for injunction involved different causes of action. The former, filed by petitioners, was founded on Act No. 3135, §7, granting the purchaser at an auction the right to possession. The latter, filed by private respondent, was based on R.A. No. 337, §78, asserting the mortgagor's right to redeem the property. The Court emphasized that the decision in one case would not be conclusive of the other, thus negating the element of res judicata required for litis pendentia. The essence of forum-shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action to obtain a favorable judgment, which was not present here. On the issue of substantial compliance with the certification of non-forum shopping: The Court found this contention to be well-taken and ruled that private respondent failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of Administrative Circular No. 09-94. The Court clarified that the requirement to file a certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory and cannot be excused by the fact that the party is not guilty of forum shopping. The Circular applies to any initiatory pleading, regardless of whether forum shopping was actually committed. The Court stressed that subsequent compliance, such as amending the complaint to include the certification, does not excuse the initial failure to comply. The rule of substantial compliance may be availed of regarding the contents of the certification, but not its complete absence in the initiatory pleading. The Court reiterated that failure to comply is not curable by amendment and shall be cause for dismissal without prejudice, unless otherwise provided.
Main Doctrine
Subsequent compliance with the requirement of a certification of non-forum shopping does not excuse the failure to comply in the first instance, as the requirement is mandatory and its non-compliance is not curable by mere amendment.