ChanRobles Virtual law Library
|
PHILIPPINE SUPREME
COURT
DECISIONS
MONDRAGON LEISURE
AND RESORTS CORPORATION,
G.R.
No.
154187
-versus- UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, Respondent. PANGANIBAN,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory. To remedy the denial, a party has to file an answer and interpose as a defense the objections raised in the motion, and then to proceed to trial. A petition for certiorari is appropriate only when an order has been issued without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In the instant case, no such ground has been established by petitioner. The Case Before us is a petition for review[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the February 18, 2002 decision[2] and the July 2, 2002 resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR SP No. 61046. The assailed decision disposed as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
The July 2, 2002 Resolution denied reconsideration. The Facts The facts of the case are narrated by the appellate court as follows:chanrobles virtual law library
On appeal, the CA ruled that respondent bank was not guilty of forum shopping in instituting Civil Case No. 9510. The appellate court noted that although the subject matter in Civil Case No. 99-1171 involved the same parties, it dealt with an entirely different set of facts, transactions, issues and causes of action.[6] Moreover, the CA found that an event of default under the Omnibus Agreement and the corresponding written notice required under it were the bases for respondent’s Complaint.[7] Hence, this Petition.[8]chanrobles virtual law library The Issues In its Memorandum, petitioner assigns the following errors for our consideration:chanrobles virtual law library
To simplify, these are the issues in the present suit: (1) whether respondent engaged in forum shopping; and (2) whether respondent’s Complaint failed to state a cause of action.chanrobles virtual law library The Court’s Ruling The Petition has no merit.cralaw:red First Issue: Forum Shopping Petitioner contends that respondent deliberately engaged in forum shopping by filing the present suit. The former points out that there is already a pending case at the Regional Trial Court, Branch 134, Makati City, docketed as Civil Case No. 99-1171 and entitled “United Coconut Planters Bank v. Mondragon Leisure and Resorts Corporation, et al.” To begin with, the essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment.[10] A party violates the rule against forum shopping if the elements of litis pendentia are present; or if a final judgment in one case would amount to res judicata in the other.[11] Thus, there is forum shopping when the following elements are present: “(a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions[;] (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts[;] and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars[,] such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration; said requisites [are] also constitutive of the requisites for auter action pendant or lis pendens.”[12]chanrobles virtual law library Prubankers Association v. Prudential Bank & Trust Company[13] elucidates the consequence of forum shopping as follows:chanrobles virtual law library “[W]here a litigant sues the same party against whom another action or actions for the alleged violation of the same right and the enforcement of the same relief is/are still pending, the defense of litis pendentia in one case is a bar to the others; and, a final judgment in one would constitute res judicata and thus would cause the dismissal of the rest.”[14] Applying the foregoing principles to the case before us in relation to Civil Case No. 99-1171, it is obvious that forum shopping does not exist. The allegations in the two Complaints show that, although there is an identity of parties, there is no identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for. The civil cases involve different credit lines.cralaw:red Civil Case No. 99-1171 is a collection case to recover amounts drawn by petitioner from a P100 million omnibus line with P60 million excess availments, a US$5 million FCDU promissory note line, and a postdated checks discounting line.[15] On the other hand, Civil Case No. 9510 is a collection case for the recovery of money availed from a P300 million term loan, with an action for foreclosure in case petitioner fails to pay.[16] It should further be noted that the credit accommodations involved in the two cases are covered by different promissory notes.chanrobles virtual law library No doubt, the elements of litis pendentia are absent, and a final judgment in either case will not amount to res judicata in the other. Petitioner’s claim of forum shopping is evidently baseless.cralaw:red Second Issue: Cause of Action It should be stressed that in determining whether a complaint fails to state a cause of action, only the allegations therein may be properly considered.[17] Moreover, a defendant who moves to dismiss the complaint on this ground hypothetically admits all the averments thereof.[18] The test of the sufficiency of the facts alleged in a petition is whether, admitting the facts alleged, the court may render a valid judgment upon them in accordance with the prayer of the complaint.[19] If the allegations in the complaint furnish sufficient basis on which it can be maintained, it should not be dismissed regardless of the defense that may be presented by the defendants.[20] If the trial court finds the allegations to be sufficient, but doubts their veracity, it must deny the motion to dismiss and then require the defendant to answer, and proceed to try the case on the merits.[21] A complaint states a cause of action when it contains these three essential elements: (1) the legal right of the plaintiff, (2) the correlative obligation of the defendant, and (3) the act or the omission of the defendant in violation of the said legal right.[22]chanrobles virtual law library In the instant case, respondent’s Complaint sufficiently establishes a cause of action. Assuming the facts to be true, (a) petitioner and respondent executed an Omnibus Credit and Security Agreement for P300 million, from which the former obtained a loan in the same amount covered by a promissory note; (b) petitioner executed an assignment of leasehold rights over the Holiday Inn Hotel to the extent of P600 million in favor of respondent to secure the repayment of the loan; (c) petitioner failed to pay the principal and interest payments on the due dates; (d) respondent made formal demands and gave notices to the former, which was subsequently declared in default; and (e) under the Omnibus Agreement, respondent may avail itself of the remedies under the existing contracts and the law and may thus seek judicial foreclosure of the collateral.[23] On the basis of these allegations, the trial court may render a valid judgment. The Complaint, therefore, passes the test of sufficiency of the facts alleged.cralaw:red Petitioner raises other matters that cannot be determined in a motion to dismiss. Those are purely factual issues that should be the subject of further proceedings, even a full-dress trial in the RTC.[24] Hence, they will not be taken up in this Decision.cralaw:red WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Regional Trial Court of Angeles City is DIRECTED to continue with deliberate speed the proceedings in Civil Case No. 9510. Costs against petitioner.cralaw:red SO ORDERED.cralaw:red Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman),
Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[1]
Rollo, pp. 11-59.chanrobles virtual law library
Back to Top - Back to Main Index - Back to Table of Contents -2004 SC Decisions - Back to Home |
|