ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 144282.� January 17, 2005]

SK REALTY vs. UY

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 17 2005.

G.R. No. 144282 (SK REALTY, INC., BAN HUA U. FLORES, LEONARDO U. FLORES, LILY UY, LILIAN UY, LILEN UY, BAN HA U. CHUA, STEPHANIE U. CHUA,� MELODY U. CHUA AND GLORIA U. CHAN, vs. JOHNNY KH UY and UBS MARKETING CORPORATION.)

Before us for resolution is respondents' motion for reconsideration of our Decision dated June 8, 2004 granting the petition for review on certiorari; and the joint comment thereon filed by petitioners.

In our challenged Decision, we affirmed the trial court's Resolution dismissing respondents' complaint for recovery of corporate records, funds and properties against petitioners on the ground of forum-shopping.

Respondents, in claiming that the rule against forum-shopping was not violated, emphasized that SEC Case No. 3328 and Civil Case No. 95-9051 involve different parties and raise distinct causes of action.

In their joint comment on the motion, petitioners assert that respondents violated the rule against forum-shopping because when they filed Civil Case No. 95-9051, they knew that there was a similar case between the same parties involving the same issues pending before the SEC En Banc docketed as SEC Case No. 3328 (later elevated to the Court of Appeals and this Court). Also, respondents' resort to forum-shopping was one of the reasons why their counsel, Atty. Enrique S. Chua, was disbarred from the practice of law.

We observe that respondents herein are raising the same issues passed upon in our assailed Decision. At any rate, we reiterate our findings specified therein, thus:

"It bears emphasis that when respondents filed Civil Case No. 95-9051 for reconveyance of properties and cancellation of titles, they knew that there was a similar case between the same parties pending before the SEC En Banc (later elevated to the Court of Appeals and this Court).

Clearly, respondents resorted to forum-shopping, one of the reasons why Atty. Enrique S. Chua, their former counsel, was disbarred from the practice of law. Indeed, the trial court was correct in dismissing respondents' complaint in Civil Case no. 95-9051 on the ground of forum-shopping."

On respondents' motion to refer the instant case to the Court, suffice it to state that pursuant to Supreme Court Circular No. 2-89, the Court En Banc is not an Appellate Court to which decisions or resolutions of a Division may be appealed.

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED WITH FINALITY.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE