ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 147058. September 20, 2006]
DAVAO LIGHT & POWER CO, INC. vs. HON. JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, DAVAO CITY, BRANCH 8, et al.
First Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT. 20, 2006.
G.R. No. 147058 (Davao Light & Power Co, Inc. vs. Hon. Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Davao City, Branch 8, et al.)
In a Decision dated March 10, 2006, the Court denied the petition filed by Davao Light & Power Co, Inc. and directed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to proceed with Civil Case No. 25,086-97. The Court rejected petitioner's arguments that the case before the RTC is one for consignation, hence, dismissible on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a cause of action, and litis pendentia .
Submitted now for resolution is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioner also filed an "Urgent Manifestation with Request for Judicial Notice," in which it was alleged that Civil Case No 3452-F-96 for Sum of Money, Damages and Attorney's Fees filed by petitioner against respondents before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Davao City, Branch 6, has already been decided against respondents on August 7, 2006, and it was ruled therein by the MTCC that there is no valid consignation made due to respondents' failure to comply with the law. According to petitioner, the ground of litis pendentia has already "matured" to res judicata .
Before the Court can require respondents to file their comment to the motion for reconsideration, they filed an Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration which is treated as their comment to the motion for reconsideration, refuting substantially petitioner's allegations.
The Court notes that petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration reiterates basically the same arguments raised in the petition. Petitioner also insists that the issue of litis pendentia was raised before the RTC and the Court of Appeals (CA), as shown by the motion for reconsideration it filed before the RTC, which was attached to the petition filed before the CA. It should be pointed out, however, that such motion for reconsideration was not attached in their petition filed before the Court. Moreover, the copy of its petition filed before the CA, which was attached to the petition filed before the Court is incomplete and contained only pages 1, 2, 3, 16, 17 and 18. Petitioner should be reminded that the rules require that the relevant documents and pertinent pleadings and papers in support of its allegations should accompany the petition. [1] cralaw The purpose of this requirement is not based on any whim or fancy but for the practical consideration of expediting resolution of cases by sparing the Court of the unnecessary wastage of time and effort in locating or verifying the source or basis of the allegations contained in the petition.
In any case, so as to set the case at rest, the Court will resolve the issue. To start with, it is wrong for petitioner to say that the ground of litis pendentia has already "matured" into res judicata . For res judicata to be invoked there must be present the basic element of a final judgment, i.e., the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final. [2] cralaw There is no showing in this case that the MTCC Decision dated August 7, 2006 is already final and executory. In fact, it would even be too early to presume any finality of said MTCC Decision considering that it was rendered only recently, and there exists the possibility that respondents may appeal therefrom.
More importantly, petitioner cannot invoke the pendency of Civil Case No. 3452-F-96 as a ground for the dismissal of Civil Case No. 25,086-97 for Damages and Attorney's Fees with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction filed by respondents against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, Branch 8.
Litis pendentia as a ground for the dismissal of an action has the following essential requisites: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties who represent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts ; (c) 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. [3] cralaw There are several tests of ascertaining whether two suits relate to a single or common cause of action, such as (1) whether the same evidence would support and sustain both the first and second causes of action; or (2) whether the defenses in one case may be used to substantiate the complaint in the other. [4] cralaw
The two cases may have been predicated on the same set of facts and involved the same parties, but the similarities end there. The nature of the two cases, the rights asserted, the reliefs prayed for, and the evidence to be presented are not the same, thus: (1) Civil Case No. 3452-F-96 is an action for Sum of Money, Damages and Attorney's Fees, while Civil Case No. 25,086-97 is for Damages and Attorney's Fees with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction; (2) Civil Case No. 3452-F-96 is premised on petitioner's right to collect payment due to respondents' alleged failure to pay their electric bill, while Civil Case No. 25,086-97 is based on alleged failure of petitioner to give notices of disconnection, the disconnection of respondents' electric services, and the removal of the electric meter by petitioner in full view of their neighbors and the public; (3) in Civil Case No. 3452-F-96, petitioners seek payment of respondents' electrical service consumption, while in Civil Case No. 25,086-97, respondents mainly ask for damages. Obviously, given these divergences, the evidence to be presented by the parties in order to prove their respective claims will necessarily be different. Moreover, as the Court stated in the assailed Decision:
x x x x the complaint filed in Civil Case No. 25,086-97 sufficiently established a case for DAMAGES, and not specific performance. Neither is it an action for consignation. This is evident from the reading of the allegations in the complaint and the reliefs prayed for. The complaint principally sought an award of moral, nominal and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees and litigation expenses, for the alleged damages suffered by respondents by reason of petitioner's disconnection of their electrical service. The allegations regarding the consignation with the court of the amounts due to petitioner are mere factual premises from which respondents are basing their theory that petitioner's disconnection of the electrical service and removal of the electric meter was unjustified. Also, the relief sought by respondents for the RTC to order petitioner to delete the amount of P9,633.32 from their account is merely incidental to their claim for damages. It is not the main cause of their claim. (Emphasis supplied)
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY, and the Urgent Manifestation with Request for Judicial Notice is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA
ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, Section 4.
[2] cralaw RULES OF COURT, Rule 39, Section 47, par. (b).
[3] cralaw Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Court of Appeals, 454 Phil. 338, 365-366 (2003).
[4] cralaw Intramuros Administration v. Contacto , 450 Phil. 704, 714 (2003).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
