Bangko Silangan Development Bank v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Leonida Umandal-Bausas maintained a savings account with petitioner Bangko Silangan Development Bank (BSDB). On April 23, 1990, she attempted to withdraw P5,000.00 but was informed that her brother, Antonio Umandal, had already withdrawn P15,000.00 on April 16, 1990, allegedly with her written authorization. Respondent Bausas denied signing the withdrawal slip and claimed her signature and her brother's were forged. She sought assistance from Edmundo Villadolid, President-Manager of Rural Bank of Nasugbu, who wrote BSDB about the incident, calling it "foul play" and a "dubious exercise of unwarranted banking operation." BSDB's auditor, Benedicto I. Ramirez, reported that the withdrawal slip signatures were genuine, but both Bausas and her brother denied signing it. Villadolid then requested the Central Bank to intervene. BSDB, in a letter dated June 6, 1990, reiterated that the withdrawal was processed following standard procedure, with verification and proper posting, and that Antonio Umandal withdrew the amount using Bausas' passbook and a withdrawal slip bearing her signature. Procedural History: As a result of the bank's response, Bausas sought the help of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). Subsequently, a news headline appeared: "Bank Money Withdrawn w/o Depositor's Knowledge." Bausas and Villadolid posted xerox copies of this news item in the municipal hall. On February 22, 1991, BSDB filed a complaint for damages against Bausas and others in the RTC of Manila (Civil Case No. 91-56185), alleging defamation and damage to its goodwill. Bausas and Villadolid counterclaimed for damages. While this case was pending, on February 13, 1992, Bausas and her husband filed a complaint for a sum of money with damages against BSDB in the RTC of Batangas (Civil Case No. 221), praying for the recovery of the P15,000.00 withdrawn, plus accrued interests, litigation expenses, and attorney's fees. BSDB filed a motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 221 on grounds of litis pendentia, splitting of cause of action, multiplicity of suits, and forum shopping. The RTC of Batangas denied the motion to dismiss. BSDB elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus. On February 26, 1993, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, holding that an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and not subject to certiorari, and that litis pendentia was not applicable. The Petition: Petitioner BSDB filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the Court of Appeals' decision. BSDB argued that the RTC of Batangas committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss, as litis pendentia barred Civil Case No. 221 due to the pendency of Civil Case No. 91-56185. BSDB claimed the issues and causes of action were the same, potentially leading to conflicting decisions.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus is not the proper remedy to question an order denying a motion to dismiss. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that there is no litis pendentia between Civil Case No. 221 and Civil Case No. 91-56185. Whether the private respondent is guilty of forum shopping.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The challenged Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The Regional Trial Court of Batangas, Branch 14, Nasugbu, Batangas, is directed to proceed with dispatch to resolve Civil Case No. 221.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of certiorari: The Court reiterated the established rule that an order denying a motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory. Such an order does not finally dispose of the case and can be reviewed only in the ordinary course of law through an appeal from the final judgment after trial. The remedy of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that is only available in cases of grave abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction, which were not present in this instance. The trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss was within its power to control its processes and orders, and no injustice resulted from this denial. The alleged potential for conflicting decisions was deemed far-fetched and could be addressed through proper appeals if an adverse decision were rendered. On litis pendentia: The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' finding that litis pendentia was not applicable. For litis pendentia to exist, there must be an identity of parties, identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, and the identity must be such that any judgment in one case would constitute res judicata in the other. In this case, Civil Case No. 91-56185 was a complaint for damages filed by BSDB against Bausas for alleged defamation due to publications about the withdrawal. Civil Case No. 221, filed by Bausas against BSDB, was a collection suit for the P15,000.00 allegedly withdrawn without authority. The issues were distinct: one concerned the bank's reputation, while the other concerned the bank's liability for the unauthorized withdrawal from a deposit account. The evidence required for each case was also different; proving defamation requires different evidence than proving negligence in a bank deposit transaction. On forum shopping: The Court held that the private respondent was not guilty of forum shopping. Forum shopping involves filing multiple actions or proceedings based on the same cause of action, hoping for a favorable outcome in one court over another. Since the elements of litis pendentia were not present, and the causes of action in the two cases were separate and distinct, there was no basis for a finding of forum shopping. The distinct nature of the causes of action meant that a judgment in one case would not be res judicata in the other, thus negating the element of seeking multiple favorable opinions on the same matter.
Main Doctrine
An order denying a motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory and therefore not appealable, nor can it be the subject of a petition for review on certiorari. Such order may only be reviewed in the ordinary course of law by an appeal from the judgment after trial. The principle of litis pendentia requires identity of parties, rights asserted and relief prayed for, and that the judgment in one case would amount to res judicata in the other.