ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 174778. October 25, 2006]
FERNANDO L. DIMAGIBA v.
MIGUEL L. CAWI, CITY JAIL WARDEN,
First Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT. 25, 2006 .
G.R. No. 174778 (Fernando
L. Dimagiba v. Miguel L. Cawi, City Jail Warden,
This is a petition for habeas corpus filed by Fernando L. Dimagiba. He prays that the Court direct respondent Miguel L. Cawi, Jail Warden of Baguio City Jail, to produce petitioner Dimagiba before the Court and explain why he should not be set at liberty without further delay.
Petitioner Dimagiba alleges that he is presently detained at the Baguio City Jail. He was charged with thirteen (13) counts of violation of the Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. It appeared that he issued thirteen (13) checks which were subsequently dishonored for the reason "account closed." After due trial, petitioner Dimagiba was found guilty of the crime charged and sentenced to three months imprisonment for each count (13 counts) by the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) in Baguio City. He was also ordered to indemnify the private complainant the amount of P1,295,000.00.
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court,
While incarcerated, petitioner filed with the RTC (Branch 5) of
The private complainant filed with the Court a petition for review assailing the said orders of the RTC. The case was docketed as G.R. No. 151876 entitled Susan Go v. Fernando L. Dimagiba. In the Decision dated June 21, 2005, the Court (Third Division) nullified the said orders of the RTC. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED and the assailed Orders NULLIFIED. Respondent's Petition for habeas corpus is hereby DENIED. Let this case be REMANDED to MTCC of Baguio City for the re-arrest of respondent and the completion of his sentence. [1] cralaw
According to petitioner, he has filed several pleadings in G.R. No. 151876, the latest of which was a Petition to Re-Open Case. The same is still pending before the Court.
Undaunted, petitioner seeks recourse anew to the Court by filing the present petition alleging that he is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus as he was deprived of his constitutionally guaranteed right to liberty. He claims that his conviction was solely due to his counsel's negligence and that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The petition is bereft of merit.
As petitioner himself admits, there is still a pending case, G.R. No. 151876, before the Court involving a petition for habeas corpus which he also filed before the RTC. He filed in the said case a petition to re-open his case and, according to petitioner, said matter is still pending before the Court. It behooves the petitioner to pursue his remedy in the Third Division and await its resolution thereof before filing the present petition.
The dismissal of the present petition is thus warranted on the ground of litis pendentia. It refers to that situation wherein another action is pending between the same parties for the same cause of actions and that the second action becomes necessary and vexatious. The following are the requisites of litis pendentia: (a) identity of parties or at least such as represent the same interest in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity in the two cases should be such that the judgment that may be rendered in one would, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the other. [2] cralaw All these requisites are present in the case at bar.
As a corollary, the present petition also violates the proscription on forum shopping because forum shopping exists when the elements of litis pendentia are present. [3] cralaw
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DENIED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, pp. 66-67.
[2] cralaw Yu v. Philippine Commercial International Bank, G.R. No. 147902, March 17, 2006, 495 SCRA 56.
[3] cralaw Bun Siong Yao v. Atty. Leonardo A. Aurelio, A.C. No. 7023, March 30, 2006, 485 SCRA 553.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
