ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 141965. June 7, 2000]

GENERAL CREDIT CORP. vs. MANUEL S. REYES, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 7 2000.

G.R. No. 141965 (General Credit Corporation vs. Commercial Credit Corporation of Cagayan de Oro and Manuel S. Reyes.)

Petitioner assails the resolution of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the regional trial court which dismissed petitioner's action for collection of a sum of money on the ground of litis pendencia.

Petitioner General Credit Corporation (GCC) filed an action for collection of a sum of money against private respondent Commercial Credit Corporation of Cagayan (CCCC) and Manuel S. Reyes, the surety of CCCC, for the credit obtained from petitioner under a credit/discounting line by virtue of which private respondent sold, discounted, and/or assigned its various notes receivables to and in favor of petitioner on a "with recourse" basis totaling P12,840,177.11. The trial court then issued a writ of attachment against private respondent.

Thereafter, private respondent filed a motion to dismiss and/or to dissolve the writ of attachment, alleging, among other things, that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause.

Consequently, the trial court issued an order dismissing the case and dissolving the writ of preliminary attachment.

Subsequent recourse to the Court of Appeals failed. Thus, the instant petition.

Initially, the Court notes that the instant petition is not accompanied by the required affidavit and proof of service upon the Court of Appeals. This lapse standing alone is sufficient to cause its outright dismissal.

But over and above the technical flaw is the fact that the Court finds no reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals in affirming the trial courts' dismissal of petitioner's action.

The requisites for the existence of litis pendencia as a ground for dismissal of an action are: (1) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interest in both action; (2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (3) the identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases is such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other case (Valencia vs. Court of Appeals, 263 SCRA 275 [1996]).

In the case at bar, all the abovementioned requisites are present. Civil Case 6255, the other case spoken of, involves the same parties as in the case at bar; it involves similar right asserted and prayed for as in the instant petition. Lastly, the final determination of Civil Case No. 6255 would amount to res judicata in the case now being considered.

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE