February 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 186607 : February 08, 2012]
PHILIPPINE DEVELOPMENT AND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 186607 (Philippine Development and Industrial Corporation v. Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation, et al.): -This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the February 26, 2009 Decision[1] of the Fifth Division of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 87848, entitled "Philippine Development and Industrial Corporation v. Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation, Sheriff Engracio M. Escasi�as, Jr. and the Registrar of Deeds of Makati City," the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, the appealed Orders dated May 2, 2006 and August 18, 2006 of the trial court are affirmed in toto.
SO ORDERED.[2]
In the assailed decision, the CA affirmed the May 2, 2006 and August 18, 2006 Orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 58 in Civil Case No. 02-289. Particularly, the RTC of Makati City, by way of its May 2, 2006 Order,[3] dismissed the complaint filed by petitioner Philippine Development and Industrial Corporation (PDIC) against respondent Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) on the ground of forum shopping.
PDIC moved for reconsideration, but this was denied by the RTC of Makati City in its August 18, 2006 Order.
The Factual Antecedents
The following are the facts as culled from the records.
On March 11, 2002, PDIC filed with the RTC of Makati City a complaint for specific performance against RCBC, praying that the latter be ordered to release from mortgage the two (2) properties covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-157944 and Condominium Certificate of Title (CCT) No. 12710 and alleging that: (i) on November 24, 1980, RCBC granted PDIC an omnibus credit line that was renewable annually; (ii) not all loans obtained under the omnibus credit line are secured by the real estate mortgage, which PDIC constituted over a parcel of land with an area of 3,571 square meters located in Meycauayan, Bulacan and covered by TCT No. T-l 57944 (Bulacan property) and a condominium unit with an area of 183.59 square meters located in Makati City and covered by CCT No. 12710 (Makati property); and (iii) despite PDlC's full payment of the secured loans, RCBC refused to release the properties from mortgage and return to PDIC the owner's duplicate copies of TCT No. T-157944 and CCT No. 12710.[4] PDIC's complaint for specific performance was docketed as Civil Case No. 02-289 and raffled to Branch 58.
Subsequently, RCBC filed with the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the RTC of Makati City a petition to extra-judicially foreclose the mortgage over the Makati property. A Notice of Sale was consequently issued on April 22, 2002, scheduling the public auction of the Makati property on May 24, 2002.
RCBC filed a similar petition with the OCC and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan, resulting in the issuance of a notice of sale on May 7, 2002, scheduling the sale of the Bulacan property at public auction on June 10, 2002.[5]
Thus, on May 22, 2002, PDIC filed an urgent motion for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction, praying that the sale of the Makati property at public auction be enjoined so as not to render the resolution of its complaint for specific performance moot and academic.
On June 3, 2002, PDIC also filed an amended and supplemental complaint,[6] impleading respondents Sheriff Engracio M. Escasinas, Jr. and the Registrar of Deeds of Makati City as additional defendants and praying that the foreclosure proceedings over the Makati property be enjoined and/or declared null and void. PDIC alleged that the foreclosure of the mortgage over the Makati property is in derogation of the RTC of Makati City's jurisdiction over the complaint for specific performance. PDIC also alleged that RCBC failed to comply with the publication requirement of Act No. 3135 and Administrative Matter (A.M.) No. 99-10-05-0 since "KONNEKSYON," where the notice of sale was published, is not a newspaper of general circulation.[7]
On June 4, 2002, PDIC also filed with the RTC of Malolos a complaint for injunction and/or nullification of foreclosure sale[8] against RCBC, mainly praying that the foreclosure sale of the Bulacan property be enjoined and/or declared null and void. PDIC alleged that RCBC's initiation of foreclosure proceedings over the Bulacan property would render its complaint for specific performance pending before the RTC of Makati City moot and academic. Further, RCBC failed to comply with the publication and venue requirements of Act No. 3135 and A.M. No. 99-10-05-0 since the sale would be conducted in Malolos and not in Meycauayan where the property is located and the notice of sale was published in a newspaper not in general circulation in Bulacan and Metro Manila. PDIC's complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 450-M-2002 and raffled to Branch 80.
In an Order dated June 7, 2002,[9] the RTC of Malolos dismissed PDIC's complaint on the grounds of non-compliance with Section 47 of Republic Act No. 8791 and forum shopping. Specifically:
After carefully considering their respective arguments or positions, their supporting documents, pleadings, including the comment filed by defendant bank Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC), this Court sees no worthy or compelling reason to grant the prayer for the issuance of a TRO. In filing this instant case, plaintiff should be guided by Section 47 of Republic Act 8791 (The General Banking Act of 2000) which states, "xxx. Any petition in court to enjoin or restrain the conduct of foreclosure proceedings instituted pursuant to this provision shall be given due course only upon the filing by the petitioner of a bond in an amount fixed by the court conditioned that he will pay all the damages which the bank may suffer by the enjoining or the restraint of the foreclosure proceeding." Moreover, the plaintiff should also be guided by the rule on Non-Forum Shopping considering that as admitted by the plaintiff, there is already a case pending before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City involving the same parties and the same subject property, thus violating the above-mentioned rule. In addition, there is no need for this Court to resolve plaintiffs application for the issuance of writ of preliminary injunction, the legal consequence of which having been thus absorbed in the light of the reason/ground stated hereunder. Furthermore, not any of the grounds allowed under Section 3 of Rule 58 of the Revised Rules of Court has been established.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the prayer for the issuance of Temporary Restraining Order is hereby Denied, and accordingly, the instant Complaint is likewise Dismissed.
SO ORDERED.[10]
On appeal,[11] the Special Tenth Division of the CA issued a Decision[12] on July 26, 2004, affirming the RTC of Malolos' dismissal of PDIC's complaint on the ground of forum shopping. PDIC filed a motion for reconsideration, but this was denied by the CA in a Resolution[13] dated September 22, 2004.
PDIC sought the reversal of the CA's adverse issuances by way of a petition for review[14] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed with this Court, which was docketed as G.R. No. 165435. However, in a Resolution[15] dated December 15, 2004, this Court denied PDIC's petition in view of its failure to demonstrate that the CA committed any reversible error. Said resolution became final and executory on April 7, 2005.[16]
On May 2, 2006, the RTC of Makati City, taking note of the CA's July 26, 2004 Decision and September 22, 2004 Resolution and this Court's December 15, 2004 Resolution, issued an Order,[17] dismissing PDIC's amended complaint for specific performance and injunction on the ground of forum shopping. It ruled thus:
Upon review of the pleadings submitted by the contending parties together with the attachments thereto, it appears that indeed plaintiff is guilty of forum shopping. Suffice to state that this matter was already proven and fully established by no less than the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.
Relevant portions of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 77577 entitled Philippine Development and Industrial Corporation vs. Rizal Commercial and Banking Corporation, et al., read:
x x x x
And when the above decision was elevated to the Supreme Court, it found no reversible error in the questioned decision of the Court of Appeals as shown in the High Court's Resolution dated December 15, 2004.
Given the situation at hand, this Court has no discretion to disregard the aforequoted findings of the Court of Appeals which was sustained by the Supreme Court.
WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the complaint is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.[18] (citation omitted)
PDIC's motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC of Makati City in an Order[19] dated August 18, 2006.
PDIC then appealed the dismissal of its complaint to the CA. However, in a Decision[20] dated February 26, 2009, the CA affirmed the RTC Makati City's May 2, 2006 and August 16, 2006 Orders. Thus:
Significantly, the issue posed before the Court had been squarely resolved by the Special Tenth Division of the Court in a Decision dated July 26, 2004 in CA-GR CV No. 77577, wherein the presence of the foregoing elements of forum-shopping were squarely discussed as follows:
"We shall first resolve the issue of whether or not plaintiff-appellant is guilty of forum-shopping in filing the instant action.
Plaintiff-appellant maintains that the court a quo erred ruling that plaintiff-appellant violated the rules on forum-shopping in instituting the present action. Appellant argues that the action it filed before the RTC, Makati was to effect the release of the certificate of title over the properties which were mortgaged in favor of defendant-appellant RCBC. Appellant added that one of the properties subject of the controversy in RTC, Makati, is a condominium unit located in Makati which is different from the property subject of the case before the court a quo.
We are not in accord with the above arguments of plaintiff-appellant.
x x x x x x x x x
In the action filed before the RTC, Makati, the plaintiff in said case is the same plaintiff in the case at bench, that is, Philippine Development and Industrial Corporation. The principal defendant in the instant case is Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation which is the same principal party defendant in the case pending before the RTC, Makati. While there are other defendants in the two cases which are different from each other, the action is principally directed against RCBC. Therefore, there is substantial identity of parties. Res judicata does not require absolute, but only substantial identity of parties.
The instant case also involves the same property covered by the case before the RTC, Makati. Plaintiff-appellant would like to impress before this Court that the property involved in the RTC, Makati is a condominium unit located in Makati City. However, a review of the complaint as well as the Amended and Supplemental Complaints filed by appellant before the RTC, Makati would show that the property covered by TCT No. T-157944 is one of the properties included in the controversy therein.
The two actions were both instituted to nullify the foreclosure sale of the property covered by TCT No. T-157944, to restrain the annotation of the certificate of sale on TCT No. T-157944 and to effect the release of the subject property in favor of appellant.
Initially, the complaint filed before the RTC, Makati, was for Specific Performance. It was subsequently amended by appellant into an action for Specific Performance and Nullification of Foreclosure with Prayer for the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction. However, in both cases the relief prayed for is to restrain the foreclosure sale of the property covered by TCT No. T-l57944 and subsequently the nullification thereof. The present action is also for the nullification of the foreclosure sale and to restrain the annotation of the sale on TCT No. T-157944.
Likewise, the two actions involve the same legal and factual issues. Plaintiff-appellant asserts that it had already paid its obligations under the real estate mortgage over the subject property. This is exactly the same allegations and issue raised by appellant in the RTC, Makati.
On these points, We find that there is identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts.
Considering that the two actions involve the same legal and factual issues, necessarily, appellant will present and rely on the same evidence. Hence, with the identity of the parties, property involved, rights asserted, relief prayed for and factual issues, the judgment that will be rendered in either action would necessarily amount to res judicata on the other, regardless of which party is successful.
Therefore, We find that the plaintiff-appellant guilty of forum-shopping in filing the instant action during the pendency and existence of the action before the RTC, Makati.
xxx xxx xxx
Moreover, a party's willful and deliberate act of forum shopping is punishable by summary dismissal of the actions filed. Therefore, We find no error on the part of the court a quo in dismissing the complaint filed by plaintiff-appellant on the ground of forum shopping.
The foregoing ruling of the Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court in a Resolution dated December 15, 2004 in G[.]R[.] No. 165435, as follows:
x x x
Thus, the Court has to abide by the salutary doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere which means "to adhere to precedents, and not to unsettle things which are established.�x x x
x x x x
Moreover, there is no showing in the record that plaintiff-appellant ever informed the trial court of its subsequent filing of a similar case with the RTC, Malolos, Bulacan, in violation of plaintiff-appellant's express undertaking in its certification in the complaint for "Specific Performance" filed with the trial court that "if he (plaintiff-appellant's representative) should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding was filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any tribunal or agency, he undertakes to inform this Honorable Court of the pendency of such action within 5 days from acquisition of such knowledge."[21] (citations omitted)
Issue
The sole issue presented for the resolution of this Court is the propriety of the dismissal of PDIC's complaint with the RTC of Makati City by reason of this Court's December 15, 2004 Resolution in G.R. No. 165435, which affirmed the dismissal of PDIC's complaint with the RTC of Malolos on the ground of forum shopping.
Our Ruling
This Court resolves to DENY this Petition.
First, the consequence of the finding that PDIC deliberately and willfully committed forum shopping, which this Court affirmed by way of the December 15, 2004 Resolution in G.R. No. 165435, is not limited to the dismissal of PDIC's complaint with the RTC of Makati City. It is well-settled that if forum shopping is intentional and premeditated, then all the actions filed shall be dismissed with prejudice.[22]
Second, the grant of PDIC's prayer is tantamount to a reversal of a final and executory judgment. However, upon finality of any judgment, this Court is dispossessed of jurisdiction to change, amend, reverse or modify the same except for the correction of clerical errors or the making of nunc pro tunc entries, which cause no prejudice to any party, or where the same is void.[23] This Court may not pass upon the same issues which had been finally adjudicated since a final and executory judgment can no longer be attacked by any of the parties or be modified, directly or indirectly, even by the Supreme Court.[24] PDIC is attempting to achieve by indirect means what is clearly proscribed.
Also, by asking that this case be resolved in a manner that will irreconcilably conflict with the December 15, 2004 Resolution in G.R. No. 165435, PDIC is, in effect, attacking the integrity of a final and executory decision. It likewise unwittingly renders this Court vulnerable to the embarrassing situation of having to render two antithetical decisions upon the same issue.
Finally, the principle of res judicata in the concept of conclusiveness of judgment bars PDIC from relitigating anew the issue on its liability for forum shopping. Under the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment, which is also known as "preclusion of issues" or "collateral estoppel", issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties involving a different cause of action.[25]
The concept clearly applies in this case since PDIC once again denies that it committed forum shopping, raising arguments similar to those it invoked in G.R. No. 165435. As earlier mentioned, this question had been previously litigated and been put to rest with finality. Such an issue had been submitted for determination and actually adjudicated. In fact, it was the threshold issue or lis mota of the proceedings before the CA and this Court. Without regard to whether the two actions are predicated on the same claim, trying an issue that was contested and decided in the first action cannot be done in the second action.cralaw
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, with Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., concurring; rollo, pp. 35-48.[2] Rollo, p. 47.
[3] Id. at 49-53.
[4] Id. at 36.
[5] Id. at 287.
[6] Id. at 14, 90-97.
[7] Id. at 93.
[8] Id. at 264-270.
[9] Id. at 290-291.
[10] Id.
[11] CA-G.R.CV No. 77577.
[12] Rollo, pp. 292-305.
[13] Id. at 306.
[14] Id. at 307-327.
[15] Id. at 328.
[16] Id. at 330.
[17] Id. at 17, 49-53.
[18] Id. at 49-53.
[19] Id. at 54.
[20] Supra note 1.
[21] Id. at 42-46.
[22] See Collantes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 169604, March 6, 2007, 517 SCRA 561, 569; Chua v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, G.R. No. 182311, August 19, 2009, 596 SCRA 524, 535.
[23] Bongcac v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 156687-88, May 21, 2009, 588 SCRA 64, 71.
[24] Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Coquia, G.R. No. 167518, March 23, 2011.
[25] Tan v. Court of Appeals, 415 Phil. 675, 681 (2001).
