San Juan v. Arambulo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Miguel L. Arambulo, Sr. filed a complaint for damages against Sunny Motors Sales, Inc. and petitioner Amando San Juan, alleging encroachment on his registered lot (Lot 43-C-10). On the same day he filed this complaint (April 12, 1996), respondent also filed a motion to withdraw it, which was granted on October 8, 1996. Procedural History: On July 2, 1996, respondent filed another complaint with the RTC, Branch 216, against petitioners Amando San Juan, Carmen V. Pineda, Nissan Commonwealth, Inc., Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, and the Register of Deeds of Quezon City. This second complaint sought cancellation of title, reconveyance, and damages, alleging that a substantial portion of respondent's lot was maliciously and fraudulently included in the titles of San Juan and Pineda. Petitioners moved to dismiss this second complaint on grounds of litis pendentia and forum shopping. The RTC, Branch 216, dismissed the second complaint for forum shopping. The Court of Appeals reversed this dismissal, holding that the two cases involved different parties and causes of action. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioners seek review of the Court of Appeals' decision, contending that the respondent committed forum shopping.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent's filing of Civil Case No. Q-96-27964 constitutes forum shopping. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC's dismissal of the second complaint.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed. The Omnibus Order dated October 8, 1996, and the Order dated January 23, 1997, are annulled and set aside, and the Complaint in Civil Case No. Q-96-27964 is reinstated. The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 216, is ordered to proceed with the trial of the case.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: Whether the respondent's filing of Civil Case No. Q-96-27964 constitutes forum shopping: Forum shopping is defined as the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, to obtain a favorable judgment. The elements of litis pendentia must be present, which include the identity of parties, identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for founded on the same facts, and the identity of the two preceding particulars such that any judgment in one action would amount to res judicata in the other. In this case, the Court found no identity of parties, causes of action, subject matter, and issues between Civil Case No. Q-96-27127 and Civil Case No. Q-96-27964. The first case involved damages due to alleged encroachment by Amando San Juan, while the second case involved the cancellation of title and reconveyance due to the fraudulent inclusion of respondent's lot in the titles of San Juan and Pineda, impleading additional parties. Furthermore, the first complaint was withdrawn by the plaintiff before the filing of the second complaint, in accordance with Section 1, Rule 17 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, forum shopping did not exist. On Issue 2: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC's dismissal of the second complaint: The Court of Appeals correctly found that the two complaints referred to different cases with distinct parties, facts, circumstances, causes of action, subject matter, and issues. The RTC erred in dismissing the second complaint on the ground of forum shopping. The Court also noted that forum shopping is committed by a party who, having received an adverse judgment in one forum, seeks another opinion in another court, other than by appeal. In this case, there was no adverse decision in the first case; it was withdrawn by the respondent. Thus, the Court of Appeals did not err in reversing the trial court's order.
Main Doctrine
The filing of a complaint that is subsequently withdrawn by the plaintiff before the service of an answer or a motion for summary judgment, and the subsequent filing of another complaint involving different parties, causes of action, subject matter, and issues, does not constitute forum shopping.