Karaan vs. Aguinaldo

Forum shopping premised on litis pendentia requires both identity of parties and substantial identity of causes of action and reliefs sought such that any judgment rendered in one case would amount to res judicata in the other; where the causes of action and reliefs sought in two cases are completely different, forum shopping is not established notwithstanding identity of parties.

Petitioner Igliceria vda. de Karaan owned and operated Fine Sand Beach Resort in Morong, Bataan. Respondents are members of the Aguinaldo family, who owned property adjacent to the beach resort and through which a road right of way had allegedly existed for over thirty years. The dispute arose from respondents' demolition of structures inside petitioner's resort, purportedly in enforcement of a Writ of Demolition issued by the RTC of Balanga in Civil Case Nos. 5702 and 5826, to which petitioner was not a party and in which her name did not even appear in the writ. Separately, a right-of-way action (Civil Case No. 7345) had been filed before the RTC of Balanga, Bataan, involving the Aguinaldo property and listing petitioner among the plaintiffs.

Petitioner Igliceria vda. de Karaan owned and operated Fine Sand Beach Resort in Morong, Bataan. The Aguinaldo family owned property adjacent to the resort, through which a road right of way approximately five meters wide had allegedly existed for more than thirty years, used by residents, tourists, and beach resort operators to access the shoreline from the National Road. Relations between petitioner and the Aguinaldo family deteriorated when, according to petitioner, respondents destroyed structures inside her resort using a bulldozer, ostensibly in enforcement of a Writ of Demolition issued by the RTC of Balanga in Civil Case Nos. 5702 and 5826. Petitioner maintained that the demolition was illegal because she was not a party to those cases and her name did not appear in the writ. She alleged that two air-conditioned cottages, five additional cottages, an elevated water tank, and a concrete fence were destroyed, causing actual damages of approximately ₱2,000,000 including unearned income during the peak summer season.

On September 20, 1999, petitioner filed a Complaint for damages before the RTC of Quezon City, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-99-38762, premised on quasi-delict arising from the demolition. Respondents moved to dismiss on October 8, 1999, on the ground of forum shopping, citing petitioner's failure to disclose in her Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping the cases she had filed before the Office of the Ombudsman and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The RTC denied the motion on April 10, 2000. On February 27, 2003, respondents filed a Manifestation and Motion to Dismiss, reiterating the forum shopping charge and additionally citing Civil Case No. 7345 — a right-of-way action pending before the RTC of Balanga, Bataan, involving the same property and parties — as well as raising jurisdictional objections. The RTC again denied the motion on April 11, 2003, and the subsequent motion for reconsideration on May 18, 2004.

Respondents then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Certiorari, contending that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying dismissal. The CA, in its Decision dated September 28, 2007, rejected the jurisdictional arguments but upheld the forum shopping claim, specifically with respect to Civil Case No. 7345. The appellate court found identity of parties and causes of action between the damages case and the right-of-way case, noting that the latter included a claim for damages arising from the same demolition, and ordered the dismissal of Civil Case No. Q-99-38762. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied on March 12, 2008, prompting the present Petition for Review. Petitioner asserted that she was never a party to Civil Case No. 7345 because she never consented to her inclusion as a plaintiff and was unaware of its filing, and that the rights asserted and reliefs sought in the two cases were substantially different — one arising from the demolition of structures and the other from the closure of a road right of way.

• No Forum Shopping: Petitioner asserted that the CA grossly erred in finding her guilty of forum shopping, contending that there is a "glaring divergence in the rights asserted and reliefs prayed for" in Civil Case No. 7345 and Civil Case No. Q-99-38762. She claimed that Civil Case No. 7345 involves a claim arising from the closure by respondents of a road right of way located inside their property in Morong, Bataan, while the instant case centers on the malicious and unlawful demolition of improvements inside her beach resort.
• Not a Party to Civil Case No. 7345: Petitioner maintained that although her name appeared in the list of plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 7345, she was not a party to the case because she never consented to her inclusion and was not even aware that the action had been filed. She did not sign the Verification and Affidavit of Non-Forum Shopping attached to the Complaint or any document authorizing the lawyer who filed the case to represent her.

• Forum Shopping Committed: Respondents asserted that petitioner committed forum shopping when she filed Civil Case No. 7345 while the instant case for damages was pending, contending that the same cause of action was utilized in both cases to protest the purportedly illegal eviction of petitioner from the same property in Morong, Bataan, and that both cases involved a prayer for damages.
• Petitioner's Denial Belied by Conduct: Respondents refuted petitioner's supposed lack of knowledge of the filing of Civil Case No. 7345, citing her familiarity with the eventual outcome of the action and her failure to take any legal action against the persons who caused her inclusion as a plaintiff in the case.

• Forum Shopping: Whether the filing of Civil Case No. 7345 constituted forum shopping on the part of petitioner.

• Forum Shopping: No. Forum shopping was not established. While identity of parties between the two cases was sufficiently established, there was no substantial identity of causes of action and reliefs sought such that a judgment in one case would amount to res judicata in the other, as required for litis pendentia.

• Forum Shopping: Forum shopping is committed when multiple suits involving the same parties and the same causes of action are filed, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment through means other than appeal or certiorari. The CA found petitioner guilty of forum shopping on the basis of litis pendentia, which requires: (a) identity of parties in the two actions; and (b) substantial identity in the causes of action and in the reliefs sought such that any judgment rendered in one case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other. As to the first element, the Court found identity of parties sufficiently established. Petitioner did not deny that her name appeared in the list of plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 7345, and her belated assertion that she was included without her knowledge or consent was doubted in light of her conduct — she failed to raise this defense early in the proceedings despite multiple opportunities, and she never communicated her predicament to the RTC of Balanga where Civil Case No. 7345 was pending or took steps to cause her removal from the list of plaintiffs. However, as to the second element, the Court found no substantial identity of causes of action and reliefs. Civil Case No. Q-99-38762 was premised on a cause of action for quasi-delict arising from the demolition of structures inside petitioner's beach resort, with a prayer for actual, moral, and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. Civil Case No. 7345, on the other hand, involved a claim for easement of right of way over respondents' property based on Article 649 of the Civil Code, with reliefs pertaining exclusively to the establishment, survey, and annotation of the road right of way, the demolition of the toll gate, and the payment of attorney's fees and costs of suit — not damages caused by the demolition of any structure. Since the causes of action and reliefs sought in the two cases were completely different, a decision in either case would not amount to res judicata in the other. The CA's finding of forum shopping was therefore unjustified, and the dismissal of petitioner's complaint was improper.

• Forum Shopping — Forum shopping is committed when multiple suits involving the same parties and the same causes of action are filed, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment through means other than appeal or certiorari. It can be committed in three ways: (1) by filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet (susceptible to dismissal based on litis pendentia); (2) by filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved (susceptible to dismissal based on res judicata); and (3) by filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action, but with different prayers (splitting of causes of action, susceptible to dismissal on the ground of either litis pendentia or res judicata). In this case, the CA found forum shopping under the first mode (litis pendentia), but the Court held that the elements were not fully satisfied because the causes of action and reliefs sought in the two cases were completely different.

• Litis Pendentia — A finding of litis pendentia must be premised on the existence of the following elements: (a) identity of parties in the two actions; and (b) substantial identity in the causes of action and in the reliefs sought such that any judgment rendered in one case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other. The Court found that only the first element (identity of parties) was established, while the second element (substantial identity of causes of action and reliefs) was absent, as one case was for damages based on quasi-delict from demolition and the other was for easement of right of way under Article 649 of the Civil Code.

• "Since the causes of action and the reliefs sought in the two cases are completely different, a decision in either case will not amount to res judicata in the other." — This passage states the ratio decidendi: the absence of identity of causes of action and reliefs defeats the finding of litis pendentia and, consequently, of forum shopping.

• "A finding of litis pendentia must be premised on the existence of the following elements: (a) identity of the parties in the two actions; and (b) substantial identity in the causes of action and in the reliefs sought such that any judgment rendered in one case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other." — This is the canonical formulation of the elements of litis pendentia as applied in this case, frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence on forum shopping.

• "Forum shopping is committed when multiple suits involving the same parties and the same causes of action are filed, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment through means other than appeal or certiorari." — This is the Court's definition of forum shopping, providing the doctrinal framework for the analysis.

• Guerrero vs. Director, Land Management Bureau, G.R. No. 183641, April 22, 2015 — Cited as the source of the three modes in which forum shopping is committed. The Court relied on this taxonomy to identify that the CA's finding was based on the first mode (litis pendentia), and then applied the elements test to determine that the finding was erroneous.

• Villamar, Jr. vs. Manalastas, G.R. No. 171247, July 22, 2015 — Cited for the elements of litis pendentia: identity of parties and substantial identity of causes of action and reliefs sought such that any judgment in one case would amount to res judicata in the other. This formulation was applied as the controlling test.

• Article 649, Civil Code — Governs the easement of right of way, providing that the owner of an immovable surrounded by other immovables without adequate outlet to a public highway may demand a right of way through neighboring estates upon payment of proper indemnity. The Court identified this as the legal basis for Civil Case No. 7345, distinguishing it from the quasi-delict claim in Civil Case No. Q-99-38762, thereby establishing the absence of identity of causes of action.

Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Lucas P. Bersamin, Jose Portugal Perez, and Francis H. Jardeleza (designated additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe) concurred in the decision.