Young v. Sy Digest

G.R. 157745 September 26, 2006
Ponente: Austria-Martinez, J.:

Forum Shopping; Litis Pendentia

Facts:  

1. The case involves 2 petitions for review under Rule 45 which were consolidated. Both petitions originated from a Complaint for Nullification of Second Supplemental Extra-judicial Settlement, Mortgage, Foreclosure Sale and Tax Declaration filed by the petitioner Genalyn D. Young. In her complaint, she alleged that the extra-judicial partition executed by her mother that adjudicated an unregistered parcel of land solely in favor of the latter, is unenforceable, since at the time of the execution, she (petitioner) was only 15 years old and no court approval had been procured; that the partition had been registered with the Register of Deeds; that Lilia Dy obtained a loan from spouses Manuel Sy and Victoria Sy (respondents) and mortgaged the subject property; that the property was foreclosed and sold to the highest bidder, respondent Manuel Sy; that a Certificate of Sale for this purpose had been registered with the Register of Deeds; and that, thereafter, respondents obtained in their name a tax declaration over the property in question.

2. The petitioner filed with the RTC a Motion to Admit Supplemental Complaint, attaching the Supplemental Complaint and she invoked her right, as co-owner, to exercise the legal redemption. 

3. The RTC denied the Motion hence the Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA denied the petition and held that the cause of action of the petitioner in the Supplemental Complaint is entirely different from the original complaint; that the Supplemental Complaint did not merely supply its deficiencies; and that, at any rate, in the event the trial court issues an adverse ruling, the petitioner can still appeal the same, hence, the petition under Rule 65 is not proper. Hence, the present Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.

3. While the Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus (re: Supplemental Complaint) was pending in the CA, trial in the RTC continued. On August 29, 2001, a day before the hearing slated for August 30, 2001, the petitioner filed a Motion to Cancel Hearing, alleging that she was indisposed. On the day of the hearing, respondents, through counsel, objected to the postponement and moved for the dismissal of the case for non-suit. The RTC sustained the objection and issued the assailed August 30, 2001 Order dismissing the Complaint. 

4. On top of the foregoing appeal, the petitioner, four months after filing her Notice of Appeal to the CA,  filed with the CA a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 70610 to annul the same RTC Orders that comprise the subject matter of the ordinary appeal. The petitioner raised essentially the same issues. CA denied the petition and held that the dismissal of the case by the RTC on the ground of non prosequitur has the effect of an adjudication upon the merits that may constitute an error of judgment correctible by ordinary appeal and not by certiorari; that the petitioner actually chose the mode of ordinary appeal by filing a Notice of Appeal on January 31, 2000; and that since the remedy of appeal was available, then the petition for certiorari, being an extraordinary remedy, must fail.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is forum shopping

YES, the Petitioner guilty of forum shopping

1. Forum shopping consists of filing multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. There is forum shopping where there exist: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful would amount to res judicata.

2. The petitioner, by filing an ordinary appeal and a petition for certiorari with the CA, engaged in forum shopping. When the petitioner commenced the appeal, only four months had elapsed prior to her filing with the CA the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 and which eventually came up to this Court by way of the instant Petition.

3. The elements of litis pendentia are present between the two suits. Both suits are founded on exactly the same facts and refer to the same subject matter—the RTC Orders which dismissed Civil Case No. SP-5703 (2000) for failure to prosecute. In both cases, the petitioner is seeking the reversal of the RTC orders. The parties, the rights asserted, the issues professed, and the reliefs prayed for, are all the same. It is evident that the judgment of one forum may amount to res judicata in the other.