Ssangyong Corp. v. Unimarine Shipping Lines
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Ssangyong Corporation (Ssangyong) entered into a Charter Contract with Unimarine Shipping Lines, Inc. (Unimarine) for the shipment of steel bars from Korea to China. The shipment was under a Free-In and Free-Out Stowed and Trimmed (FIOST) arrangement. Upon arrival in Shantou, China, port authorities demanded payment of sorting charges and a quick dispatch bonus. Unimarine requested Ssangyong to pay, but Ssangyong refused, claiming it was Unimarine's responsibility. Unimarine then notified Ssangyong of its intent to charge detention expenses and exercise its lien over the cargo. The vessel, after being anchored for over 10 days, returned to Cebu City. Procedural History: On April 5, 1993, Unimarine filed a petition for the auction sale of Ssangyong's cargo to recover detention charges and freight costs. The cargo was sold at public auction on April 12, 1993, to Rodson Philippines, Inc. (Rodson) for US$100,000.00. On July 1, 1993, Unimarine filed a collection case against Ssangyong in Cebu RTC (Cebu Case). On July 8, 1993, Ssangyong filed a complaint against Unimarine, Rodson, Paul and Peter Rodriguez, and later Inter-Pacific Lines, Inc. (Inter-Pacific) in Makati RTC (Makati Case) for specific performance and damages, seeking nullification of the auction sale and return of the cargo or its value. Ssangyong later received the complaint in the Cebu Case and, in its Answer, raised litis pendentia as an affirmative defense, arguing that the Makati Case should be dismissed. Conversely, the defendants in the Makati Case moved for its dismissal on the ground of litis pendentia, citing the Cebu Case. The Cebu RTC denied Ssangyong's motion to dismiss, suggesting counterclaims. The Makati RTC dismissed Ssangyong's complaint in the Makati Case on the ground of litis pendentia. Ssangyong appealed to the CA, which affirmed the Makati RTC's dismissal. Ssangyong also filed a petition for certiorari against the Cebu RTC's order, which was dismissed by the CA for being filed out of time. This Court denied Ssangyong's petition for review of the CA's dismissal of the certiorari petition (G.R. No. 141611). The CA, in CA-G.R. CV No. 50291, affirmed the Makati RTC's dismissal of Ssangyong's complaint. The Petition: Ssangyong filed the instant petition for review on certiorari, arguing that the CA erred in affirming the dismissal of the Makati Case on the ground of litis pendentia, and that if litis pendentia were present, the Cebu Case should have been dismissed instead of the Makati Case.
Issue(s)
Whether the Makati RTC correctly dismissed Civil Case No. 93-2279 on the ground of litis pendentia. Whether Ssangyong is estopped from denying the identity of the two cases after invoking litis pendentia as an affirmative defense in the Cebu Case.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 50291 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that all three requisites for litis pendentia were present. First, there is an identity of parties because the primary litigants in both cases are Ssangyong and Unimarine; the inclusion of additional respondents like Rodson and the Rodriguez family in the Makati case does not defeat this requirement. Second, there is an identity of rights and relief because both actions are based on the same set of facts involving the shipment of steel bars and the subsequent auction sale in Cebu. Third, the resolution of the Cebu Case would constitute res judicata in the Makati Case as it would determine the validity of the auction sale and which party was at fault for the non-delivery. The Court noted that the date of filing generally gives preference to the first action (the Cebu Case) to be retained. On Issue 2: The Court held that Ssangyong is judicially estopped from asserting that there is no identity of causes of action between the two cases. In its Answer to the Cebu Case, Ssangyong explicitly admitted that the Makati Case involved the same parties and interests, with identity of rights asserted and reliefs founded on the same facts. Under the ruling in McDaniel v. Apacible, a party's admission in their pleading is conclusive upon them, and they cannot take a position contradictory to or inconsistent with that admission. By previously moving to dismiss the Cebu Case based on the pendency of the Makati Case, Ssangyong admitted the existence of litis pendentia and cannot now argue otherwise to prevent the dismissal of the Makati Case.
Main Doctrine
The requisites for litis pendentia are: (1) identity of parties, or at least such parties represent the same interests in both actions; (2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (3) the identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases is such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other case. The inclusion of new parties in the second action does not remove the case from the operation of the rule of litis pendentia, as long as the primary litigants in the first case are also parties in the second action.