Veluz v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Rudecon Management Corporation (RUDECON) filed an unlawful detainer case against Ramon M. Veluz (VELUZ) for Unit 4-D of Tempus Place I Condominium. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) ruled in favor of RUDECON, ordering VELUZ to vacate and pay rentals. Procedural History: VELUZ appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). During the appeal, Sisenando Singson (SINGSON), claiming to be the owner and VELUZ's lessor, filed a Motion for Intervention, which the RTC denied. The RTC also reprimanded SINGSON and his counsel for forum shopping due to a pending case filed by SINGSON. The RTC affirmed the MTC decision and granted RUDECON's motion for execution pending appeal. The Petition: VELUZ, through SINGSON's counsel, filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing the RTC decision. RUDECON filed a comment, praying for dismissal and alleging forum shopping by VELUZ and his counsel, citing another pending petition filed by SINGSON (CA-G.R. SP No. 49648) involving substantially the same issues. RUDECON also filed a Motion to Show Cause why VELUZ and his counsel should not be cited for contempt for forum shopping. The CA dismissed VELUZ's petition, holding that the forum shopping allegation was unrebutted due to VELUZ's failure to file a reply and that the dismissal was based on the Motion to Show Cause. The CA denied VELUZ's motion for reconsideration.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals violated procedural due process by dismissing the Petition for Review/Certiorari for failure to file a reply to a Motion to Show Cause without prior requirement. Whether a Petition for Review/Certiorari in an unlawful detainer case can be dismissed for forum shopping due to another petition filed by the lessor, who was not a party to the ejectment case and whose intervention was denied.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the Resolution of the Court of Appeals, remanding the case for further proceedings. The Court found that the CA erred in dismissing the petition on the ground of forum shopping based on an unrebutted allegation and by relying on a Motion to Show Cause instead of the Comment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal for failure to file a reply and procedural due process: The Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that RUDECON's allegation of forum shopping was unrebutted due to VELUZ's failure to file a reply. Under Section 10, Rule 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, new matters alleged in an answer or comment are deemed controverted even without a reply, except for specific defenses like usury or actionable documents. Therefore, the allegation of forum shopping, being a new matter, should have been deemed controverted. The Court further found that the Court of Appeals erred in basing its dismissal on RUDECON's Motion to Show Cause, which prayed for contempt, instead of RUDECON's Comment. Section 4 of Rule 42 of the Rules of Court explicitly states that the CA may require a respondent to file a comment, not a motion to dismiss. Treating the Motion to Show Cause as a basis for dismissal contravened this provision. The Court clarified that VELUZ was not denied procedural due process, as the CA's Resolution dated April 15, 1999, clearly stated that VELUZ could file a reply within five days from receipt of the comment. Thus, an opportunity to reply was provided. On the existence of forum shopping: The Court disagreed with the CA's finding of forum shopping. It reiterated the definition of forum shopping, requiring identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and relief sought, such that litis pendentia or res judicata would apply. In this case, while the facts and issues were similar, there was no identity of parties or rights asserted. VELUZ asserted his right as a lessee, while SINGSON asserted his right as an owner. A judgment in VELUZ's case would not be res judicata against SINGSON, who was not a party to the original ejectment case or its appeal. The Court also found no forum shopping in the other cases cited by RUDECON, as these cases involved distinct causes of action and, except for the disbarment proceedings, VELUZ was not a party, nor was ATTORNEY CAMACHO shown to be counsel in all of them. The requisites of litis pendentia were not met.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals erred in dismissing a petition for certiorari on the ground of forum shopping based on an unrebutted allegation in a Motion to Show Cause, when such allegation should have been deemed controverted for failure to file a reply, and when the dismissal was based on the Motion to Show Cause instead of the Comment, contrary to the Rules of Court.