ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[]

RIESENBECK vs. SPS. MACEREN

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 20 2005.

G.R. No. 158608 (JOHANNES RIESENBECK vs. SPOUSES SILVINO G. MACEREN, JR. and PATRICIA A. MACEREN.)

This petition for review on certiorari finds its genesis in a civil case for annulment of contract filed by petitioner Johannes Riesenbeck against the respondent-spouses Silvino, Jr. and Patricia Maceren which was dismissed by the lower court on the ground that the same is "in essence, a species of forum shopping." Apparently, petitioner had earlier filed a case for Declaratory Relief which was still pending in another branch of the Regional Trial Court while his wife filed a case for Legal Redemption which was pending in the Court of Appeals. According to the lower court, all these cases arose out of the same contract of lease executed by the parties.

In a Decision dated 02 September 2002, the Court of Appeals disagreed with the finding of the lower court as to the existence of forum shopping as it held that not all elements of litis pendentia, ergo, not all elements of forum shopping, were present. The Court of Appeals, however, still dismissed the case for being moot and academic as the respondents had earlier pre-terminated the contract under question. Finally, upon motion for reconsideration, the Court of Appeals appeared to have reconsidered its position regarding the issue of forum shopping.

Crystal clear from the divergent findings of the two courts, as welt as the seemingly vacillating position taken by the Court of Appeals on the matter of the existence of forum shopping, is the need to refer to the two other cases filed by petitioner Riesenbeck and/or his wife against the spouses Maceren in Civil Case No. 2296-L (for Declaratory Relief) and Civil Case No. 2819-L (for Legal Redemption, Injunction and Damages) in order to arrive at a judicious and accurate assessment of the rights and duties of the parties herein, if any, with respect to the instant case.

Considering, however, the dearth of information as to the above-mentioned civil cases, counsel for petitioner, Florido & Lagro Law Offices, and Atty. Silvino Maceren, Jr., on his behalf and that of his wife, are hereby directed to furnish this Court copies of the Complaints in Civil Case No. 2296-L (for Declaratory Relief) and Civil Case No. 2819-L (for Legal Redemption, Injunction and Damages) and the Decisions thereon, if any, by the trial court and the Court of Appeals within a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days from receipt hereof.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE