G.R. No. 154618 ; April 14, 2004
AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES SINGAPORE (PTE) LTD., petitioner, vs. INTEGRATED SILICON TECHNOLOGY PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Agilent Technologies Singapore, a foreign corporation not licensed to do business in the Philippines, entered into a Value Added Assembly Services Agreement (VAASA) with respondent Integrated Silicon Technology Philippines Corporation through an assignment from Hewlett-Packard Singapore. The agreement involved the consignment of machinery and materials to Integrated Silicon for manufacturing fiber optics. On May 25, 2001, Integrated Silicon filed a complaint for Specific Performance and Damages (Civil Case No. 3110-2001-C) against Agilent before the RTC of Calamba, Laguna, Branch 35, alleging breach of an oral agreement to extend the VAASA. Subsequently, on July 2, 2001, Agilent filed its own complaint for Specific Performance, Recovery of Possession, and Sum of Money with Replevin (Civil Case No. 3123-2001-C) against Integrated Silicon and its officers before RTC Branch 92 of the same court, seeking the return of its consigned equipment and materials.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in giving due course to the certiorari petition despite respondents’ failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the trial court’s order; and (2) whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed Civil Case No. 3123-2001-C on the grounds of litis pendentia and forum shopping due to the prior filing of Civil Case No. 3110-2001-C.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s order. On the procedural issue, the Court held that the failure to file a motion for reconsideration was not fatal because the trial court’s order granting the writ of replevin was a final order on the provisional remedy, making certiorari an available remedy. However, on the substantive issues, the Court found no litis pendentia or forum shopping. For litis pendentia to exist, there must be identity of parties, rights asserted, and reliefs sought. Here, while both cases arose from the VAASA, the parties were not identical—Agilent’s complaint included individual corporate officers not sued in the first case. The causes of action and reliefs sought were also different: Integrated Silicon’s suit was for contract extension and damages, while Agilent’s was essentially an action in rem for recovery of specific property. Consequently, there was no forum shopping as the actions involved different primary rights. The Court further clarified that Agilent, though an unlicensed foreign corporation, had the capacity to sue as its claim was based on a singular transaction not constituting “doing business” in the Philippines, and it was merely defending itself in local litigation. The cases involved distinct issues and could proceed separately.