January 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > January 2007 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 174306 : January 22, 2007] FIL-ESTATE GOLF AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. V. TAN TIONG BIO A.K.A. HENRY TAN:
[G.R. No. 174306 : January 22, 2007]
FIL-ESTATE GOLF AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. V. TAN TIONG BIO A.K.A. HENRY TAN
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of the Third Division of this Court dated 22 JANUARY 2007
G.R. No. 174306 - (Fil-Estate Golf and Development, Inc. v. Tan Tiong Bio a.k.a. Henry Tan)
R E S O L U T I O N
On January 26, 2001, respondent filed with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board-Expanded National Capital Region Field Office (HLURB-ENCRFO) a Complaint against petitioner for rescission of a contract to sell with prayer for damages, attorney's fees, and cost of suit.[1]
On October 25, 2001, HLURB-ENCRFO Arbiter Rowena Balasolla ruled in favor of the respondent.[2] On appeal, the HLURB-Board of Commissioners (HLURB-BOC), in its Decision dated November 25, 2002, affirmed the decision of the Arbiter with modification as to the applicable interest rate on the amount to be refunded.[3] Both parties filed motions for partial reconsideration which were denied by the HLURB-BOC in a Resolution dated March 18, 2003.[4]
Dissatisfied, both parties filed separate appeals with the Office of the President (OP). In an Order dated December 10, 2003, the OP dismissed both appeals for being filed out of time.[5] The parties' separate motions for reconsideration were also denied by the OP in an Order dated February 19, 2004.[6]
On April 2, 2004, petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 82872.[7] On January 27, 2006, the CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit.[8] Petitioner's motion for reconsideration[9] was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated August 15, 2006.[10]
On October 12, 2006, petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with this Court.[11]
On October 26, 2006, respondent filed a Motion for Leave to File Herein Incorporated Manifestation calling the attention of the Court that the petition contains a false certification of non-forum shopping. Respondent claims that petitioner failed to inform the Court that respondent filed on April 2, 2004 a petition for certiorari entitled "Tan Tiong Bio a.k.a. Henry Tan v. Fil-Estate Golf and Development, Inc." with the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 82822, which passed upon an attack against exactly the same assailed Orders of the OP dated December 10, 2003 and February 19, 2004, respectively, involving the same issue arising from exactly the same case as that of the present petition; that the CA Resolution dated May 14, 2004 in CA-G.R. SP No. 82822 dismissing the petition became final on June 12, 2004; that petitioner's deliberate concealment of such proceeding before the CA warrants summary dismissal of the present petition and petitioner is liable for indirect contempt.[12]
On November 6, 2006, petitioner filed its Comment to respondent's Manifestation contending that since CA-G.R. SP No. 82822 has already attained its finality, there is no more pending action involving the same issues in the present case which would make any statement in petitioner's verification and certification on non-forum shopping false as claimed by respondent.[13]
Forum shopping exists when both actions involve the same transactions, same essential facts and circumstances and raise identical causes of actions, subject matter, and issues.[14]
In the present case, petitioner cannot be charged with executing a falsified certification for not informing the Court of CA-G.R. SP No. 82822. Petitioner did not commit forum shopping when it failed to inform this Court of CA-G.R. SP No. 82822. While the parties are the same in the present petition and CA-G.R. SP No. 82822, there is no identity of cause of action, issues, and reliefs prayed for since the cases refer to the separate appeals of petitioner and respondent. The CA's Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 82822 dismissing respondent's petition for review has no bearing to the present case. While the same Decision and Resolution of the OP are assailed, the issues are not similar. The CA Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 82822 resolved only the OP's dismissal of respondent's appeal based on facts unique to respondent's circumstance. On the other hand, in the present petition, petitioner not only raises the validity of OP's dismissal of its own appeal but also the applicable interest rate on the amount to be refunded and the propriety of the damages awarded in favor of respondent. Thus, it cannot thereby be concluded that the facts, issues, and arguments in the present case are the same as those in CA-G.R. SP No. 82822. The decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 82822 will not amount to res judicata in the present case.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds that petitioner has not committed forum shopping.
Without giving due course to the petition for review, respondent is required to COMMENT thereon, within ten (10) days from notice.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 174306 - (Fil-Estate Golf and Development, Inc. v. Tan Tiong Bio a.k.a. Henry Tan)
On January 26, 2001, respondent filed with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board-Expanded National Capital Region Field Office (HLURB-ENCRFO) a Complaint against petitioner for rescission of a contract to sell with prayer for damages, attorney's fees, and cost of suit.[1]
On October 25, 2001, HLURB-ENCRFO Arbiter Rowena Balasolla ruled in favor of the respondent.[2] On appeal, the HLURB-Board of Commissioners (HLURB-BOC), in its Decision dated November 25, 2002, affirmed the decision of the Arbiter with modification as to the applicable interest rate on the amount to be refunded.[3] Both parties filed motions for partial reconsideration which were denied by the HLURB-BOC in a Resolution dated March 18, 2003.[4]
Dissatisfied, both parties filed separate appeals with the Office of the President (OP). In an Order dated December 10, 2003, the OP dismissed both appeals for being filed out of time.[5] The parties' separate motions for reconsideration were also denied by the OP in an Order dated February 19, 2004.[6]
On April 2, 2004, petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 82872.[7] On January 27, 2006, the CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit.[8] Petitioner's motion for reconsideration[9] was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated August 15, 2006.[10]
On October 12, 2006, petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with this Court.[11]
On October 26, 2006, respondent filed a Motion for Leave to File Herein Incorporated Manifestation calling the attention of the Court that the petition contains a false certification of non-forum shopping. Respondent claims that petitioner failed to inform the Court that respondent filed on April 2, 2004 a petition for certiorari entitled "Tan Tiong Bio a.k.a. Henry Tan v. Fil-Estate Golf and Development, Inc." with the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 82822, which passed upon an attack against exactly the same assailed Orders of the OP dated December 10, 2003 and February 19, 2004, respectively, involving the same issue arising from exactly the same case as that of the present petition; that the CA Resolution dated May 14, 2004 in CA-G.R. SP No. 82822 dismissing the petition became final on June 12, 2004; that petitioner's deliberate concealment of such proceeding before the CA warrants summary dismissal of the present petition and petitioner is liable for indirect contempt.[12]
On November 6, 2006, petitioner filed its Comment to respondent's Manifestation contending that since CA-G.R. SP No. 82822 has already attained its finality, there is no more pending action involving the same issues in the present case which would make any statement in petitioner's verification and certification on non-forum shopping false as claimed by respondent.[13]
Forum shopping exists when both actions involve the same transactions, same essential facts and circumstances and raise identical causes of actions, subject matter, and issues.[14]
In the present case, petitioner cannot be charged with executing a falsified certification for not informing the Court of CA-G.R. SP No. 82822. Petitioner did not commit forum shopping when it failed to inform this Court of CA-G.R. SP No. 82822. While the parties are the same in the present petition and CA-G.R. SP No. 82822, there is no identity of cause of action, issues, and reliefs prayed for since the cases refer to the separate appeals of petitioner and respondent. The CA's Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 82822 dismissing respondent's petition for review has no bearing to the present case. While the same Decision and Resolution of the OP are assailed, the issues are not similar. The CA Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 82822 resolved only the OP's dismissal of respondent's appeal based on facts unique to respondent's circumstance. On the other hand, in the present petition, petitioner not only raises the validity of OP's dismissal of its own appeal but also the applicable interest rate on the amount to be refunded and the propriety of the damages awarded in favor of respondent. Thus, it cannot thereby be concluded that the facts, issues, and arguments in the present case are the same as those in CA-G.R. SP No. 82822. The decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 82822 will not amount to res judicata in the present case.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds that petitioner has not committed forum shopping.
Without giving due course to the petition for review, respondent is required to COMMENT thereon, within ten (10) days from notice.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELlNA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELlNA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Annex "C" of the Petition, rollo, p. 54.
[2] Annex "E" of the Petition, id at 95.
[3] Id. at 124.
[4] Annex "I" of the Petition, id. at 136.
[5] Annex "L" of the Petition, id. at 173.
[6] Annex "N" of the Petition, id. at 180.
[7] Annex "O" of the Petition, id. at 182.
[8] Annex "A" of the Petition, id. at 38.
[9] Annex "P" of the Petition, id. at 207.
[10] Annex "B" of the Petition, id. at 51.
[11] Id. at 9.
[12] Id. at 213.
[13] Id. at 230.
[14] Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. v. WMC Resources International Pty. Ltd., 458 Phil. 701,711 (2003); Bernardo v. Court of Appeals, 388 Phil. 793, 834 (2000).
