Bank of America, NT & SA v. Litonjua

Bank of America, NT & SA v. Litonjua

G.R. No. 120135 March 31, 2003

Ponente: Austria-Martinez, J.

Facts:

1. The Litonjuas (Eduardo and Aurelio), private respondents, were engaged in the shipping business. They owned 2 vesselsthrough their company and deposited their revenues with the petitioner banks in both Hongkong and UK. The respondents alleged that the petitioner offered easy loans to help them acquire additional three (3) vessels through their company. The operation and the funds were then placed under the control of the petitioner while the possession of the vessels were left in the hands of persons designated.

2. The said vessels were subsequently foreclosed when the business of respondents declined. However, the bank as trustee failed to render an accounting of the incomes of the said vessels. This prompted the Litonjuas to file a complaint. The petitioner bank filed a motion to dismiss  on the ground of forum non conveniens and lack of cause of action. The MD was denied by the lower court. The petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the CA. The Court of Appeals dismissed. It was treated by the CA as a petition for certiorari.

Issue: Whether or not the case should have been dismissed on the ground of FNC

HELD:

NO. Whether a suit is to be dismissed on the ground of FNC depends largely upon the facts of the case and is addressed to the sound discretion of the courts. The following requisites must be met: 

- The Philippine court must be one to which the parties may conveniently resort to

- The Philippine courts is in the position to make intelligent decisions as to law and facts

- It has or likely have the power to enforce its decision.

As to the issue on forum shopping, the court held that there is no forum shopping due to the pendency of the foreign action. Forum shopping exists where elements of litis pendentia are present and where a final judgement is one case will amount to res judicata in the other. Litis pendentia presuposses the existence of these elements; identity of parties, identity of righs asserted and relief prayed for (founded on the same acts) and the identity of the two cases is such that judgement in one case would amount to res judicata in the other. 

Not all the elements for litis pendentia are present here. The petitioner failed to show these as it merely mentioned that civil cases were filed in Hongkong and UK without showing the identity of the rights asserted or reliefs sought, as well as the presence of elements of res judicata should one of the case be adjudged.