Medado v. Consing
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute stems from a sale of property, Hacienda Sol, involving petitioner Elsa D. Medado and her husband (Spouses Medado) and the estate of the late Antonio Consing (Estate of Consing), represented by Soledad Consing. Spouses Medado purchased the property in 1996, agreeing to assume the outstanding mortgage with Philippine National Bank (PNB). Subsequently, the Estate of Consing offered the property to the government under the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) program. The Estate of Consing later filed a case for rescission and damages against Spouses Medado, alleging breach of contract. Spouses Medado, fearing that the VOS proceeds would be released to the Estate of Consing, filed an action for injunction to prevent the release of funds to the estate and to compel their release to them. 2. Procedural History: Spouses Medado filed an action for injunction (Civil Case No. 797-C) with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 60, Cadiz City, seeking to restrain the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) from releasing VOS proceeds to the Estate of Consing and to compel LBP to release them to Spouses Medado. The RTC granted their application for preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunctions. The Heirs of Antonio Consing (Consing) filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing the RTC's order and arguing litis pendentia and forum shopping. The CA granted the petition, nullified the RTC's order, and dismissed the injunction case. Spouses Medado's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA. 3. The Petition: Petitioner Elsa D. Medado filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking to annul the CA's decision and resolution. The petition raises three main issues: (1) whether the CA correctly admitted the petition for certiorari despite alleged deficiencies in its verification and certification against forum shopping; (2) whether the CA correctly admitted the petition for certiorari despite the absence of a motion for reconsideration filed with the lower court; and (3) whether the CA correctly held that the rule against forum shopping was violated by the filing of the injunction case during the pendency of the rescission case. The respondents, in their comment, also raised the issue of the petitioner's husband not being joined as a party.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly admitted the petition for certiorari despite alleged deficiencies in its verification and certification against forum shopping. Whether the Court of Appeals correctly admitted the petition for certiorari even if no motion for reconsideration of the RTC’s Order dated March 9, 2007 was filed with the lower court. Whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that the rule against forum shopping was violated by the filing of the complaint for injunction during the pendency of the action for rescission and damages.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari, affirming the Court of Appeals' Decision dated September 26, 2008, which reversed and set aside the order of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 60, Cadiz City, dated March 09, 2007. Dispositive Portion: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for review on certiorari is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal’s Decision dated September 26, 2008, which reversed and set aside the order of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 60, Cadiz City, dated March 09, 2007, is perforce AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of verification and certification against forum shopping: The Supreme Court held that the requirements for verification and certification against forum shopping in the CA petition were substantially complied with. Soledad Consing signed on behalf of her co-petitioners by virtue of a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) which authorized her to take necessary actions to protect their rights and interests. The Court reiterated that the verification requirement is intended to ensure the truthfulness of allegations and good faith in filing the pleading, and that substantial compliance is sufficient, especially when petitioners share a common interest and cause of action. The Court also noted that the second ground regarding the jurat citing a community tax certificate was not raised in the CA. On the issue of the absence of a motion for reconsideration: The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's ruling that it was proper to entertain the petition for certiorari without a prior motion for reconsideration. The Court cited recognized exceptions to the general rule, including situations where a motion for reconsideration would be useless. In this case, the heirs of Consing had withdrawn their motion for reconsideration after the RTC had already implemented the writs, rendering the motion moot and academic. The Court emphasized that the purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to give the lower court an opportunity to correct errors, but this is not strictly required when the circumstances render it futile. On the issue of forum shopping: The Supreme Court ruled that forum shopping existed because the elements of litis pendentia were present. There was an identity of parties representing the same interests, an identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for founded on the same facts, and the potential for res judicata. The Court explained that filing an injunction case (Civil Case No. 797-C) during the pendency of a rescission case (Civil Case No. 00-11320) involving the same properties and parties violated the rule against forum shopping. The Court clarified that even if one action seeks enforcement and the other seeks rescission, both actions ultimately determine the validity of the same contract, thus satisfying the identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for. The CA was correct in dismissing the injunction complaint for violating the rule against forum shopping, as the rescission case was the appropriate vehicle for litigating the validity of the deeds of sale.
Main Doctrine
The filing of an injunction case during the pendency of a rescission case involving the same parties and subject matter constitutes forum shopping, violating the rule against litis pendentia. Exceptions to the requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration before filing a petition for certiorari exist when such motion would be useless.