Valencia, substituted by heirs et. al v.
CA, Bagtas and Bunye
Facts:
·
Private
respondents are lessees of a 24-hectare fishpond owned by petitioner as
substituted by heirs;
·
The
lease was suppose to expire on May 1987 but before said date, on June 1984,
petitioners filed a rescission of the lease contract;
·
The
RTC of Malolos, Bulacan, issued a writ of preliminary Mandatory Injunction
ordering private respondents to surrender the possession if the fishpond to petitioner;
·
So,
private respondents filed a petition for Certiorari before the IAC, thus, IAC
issued a restraining order enjoining petitioner and the RTC from enforcing the
mandatory injunction;
·
Despite
IAC’s order, petitioner filed an ex-parte motion for the designation of a
member of the Philippine Constabulary to maintain order in the place which the
RTC granted;
·
Consequently,
private respondents were ejected from the main hut and petitioner’s men with
the aid of the PC dried up a portion of the leased property where private
respondents grew fertilizers; further, private respondents were also prevented
from transferring the bigger fishes to a more spacious portion of the fishpond,
thus resulting to the death of many fishes;
·
Private
respondents filed a case for damages before the RTC of Manila;
·
Petitioners
filed motion to dismiss; but denied.
Lower court rulings:
RTC:
ordered petitioners to pay private respondents damages as prayed (exemplary,
moral and attorney’s fees)
·
Both
parties appealed to the CA
(a)
Petitioner:
alleged litis pendentia
(b)
Private
respondents: aggrieved that court failed to award actual damages and sought
increase in amount
CA:
Affirmed the RTC that there was no litis pendentia and awarded additional
actual damages to private respondent
*motion
for reconsideration was denied
Issue: WON the case before the RTC of Manila constitutes “forum
shopping”, splitting of cause of action, and litis pendentia
Ruling: No, the case before the RTC of Manila constitutes neither
any of the three issues raised by petitioner.
If a
party splits his single cause of action, the other action or actions filed may
be dismissed by invoking litis pendentia pursuant to Sec.1 (e), rule 16.
A party
who splits his single cause of action cannot be accused of also “violating the
rule agains litis pendentia” as the
former, a malpractice, gives rise to the latter, a ground for a motion to
dismiss.
“Sec. 4, Rule 2. If two or more
complaints are brought for different parts of a single cause of action the
filing of the first nay be pleaded in abatement of the other or others in
accordance with section 1 (e) of Rule 16, and a judgment upon the merits in any
one is available as a bar in the others.”
Requisites
for litis pendentia:
(1) Identity of parties;
(2) Identity of rights asserted and relief
prayed for, relief being founded on the same acts;
(3) Any judgment that may be rendered in the
pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res
judicata in the other;
There
may be identity of parties but the other two elements are not present.
The
case in Bulacan was founded upon the alleged violations by the private
respondents as lessees of certain stipulations in their lease contract with
petitioner, and therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that the rights asserted (by
petitioner as lessor) and relief sought therein (i.e. rescission of the lease
contract) were entirely different from those asserted in Manila.
The
latter case stemmed from the prejudice suffered by private respondents due to
petitioner’s violation of the IAC’s restraining orders for the observance of
the status quo between the parties, the relief demanded therein consisting of
actual, moral and exemplary damages.
IMPORTANT
(in conclusion to above):
Thus,
the respondent court committed no reversible error in holding that “the causes
of action in the two cases are not the same; they are founded on different
acts; the rights violated are different; and the reliefs sought are also
different.”
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment