GR 143464; (March, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 143464; March 5, 2003
EMILIO S. YOUNG, petitioner, vs. JOHN KENG SENG a.k.a JOHN SY, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent John Keng Seng filed a complaint for accounting and damages against petitioner Emilio Young and his wife (Civil Case No. 96-9508). The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed this first case on March 6, 1997, for lack of cause of action. On June 23, 1997, respondent filed a second, similar complaint solely against petitioner (Civil Case No. 97-9830). Petitioner moved to dismiss the second case, initially arguing only failure to state a cause of action. After the motion was denied, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, raising for the first time the ground of forum shopping, alleging respondent submitted a false certification against it. The RTC initially granted the motion and dismissed the case but, upon re-raffle, a new judge reconsidered, finding no forum shopping violation.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the trial court’s finding that respondent did not violate the rule against forum shopping, and whether petitioner waived the right to invoke this ground.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic is twofold. First, on the merits, there was no violation of the rule against forum shopping. Forum shopping exists when a party institutes two or more actions based on the same cause, with the same relief, before different courts simultaneously or nearly simultaneously to increase the chances of a favorable decision. Here, the second case was filed months after the first case had already been dismissed with finality. Since the first action was no longer pending, the second action did not constitute forum shopping. The rule is designed to prevent concurrent jurisdiction over the same subject matter, which was not present.
Second, procedurally, petitioner waived the ground of forum shopping. The rule requires that a motion to dismiss based on forum shopping must be raised at the earliest opportunity, typically in the original motion to dismiss or in the answer. Petitioner’s initial Motion to Dismiss was based solely on failure to state a cause of action. He invoked forum shopping only in a subsequent Motion for Reconsideration after his original motion was denied. This belated invocation constitutes a waiver. The Court emphasized that while forum shopping is a ground for dismissal, it is not jurisdictional and can be waived if not timely pleaded. The policy against forum shopping is not meant to be a trap for the unwary but a shield against abuse of court processes, which was not evident under these circumstances.