GR 104019; (January, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 104019 January 25, 1993
VICTRONICS COMPUTERS, INC., petitioner, vs. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 63, MAKATI, presided by JUDGE JULIO R. LOGARTA, PANORAMA ENTERPRISES, INC., PASIG TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CORP., GALACTIC SPACE DEVELOPMENT CORP., MALATE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CORP., CALOOCAN TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CORP., BARRIENTOS & CO., INC., KARL C. VELHAGEN and ARCHIMEDES R. KING, who operate business under the names VICTORIA COURT, GMT CONSOLIDATED COMPANY and VICTORIA GROUP OF COMPANIES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Victronics Computers, Inc. submitted a quotation for computer systems to service the networking requirements of various Victoria Court branches. Private respondents Karl C. Velhagen and Archimedes R. King, acting on behalf of “GMT CONSOLIDATED,” placed an order via a Purchase Order for six sets of computer systems. A 50% downpayment was paid, and petitioner delivered the systems to different Victoria Court motel locations, each owned by one of the six respondent corporations that operated under a common management team. Only 50% of the purchase price for each delivered set was paid. Petitioner filed a collection suit (Civil Case No. 91-2069) in the RTC of Makati, Branch 63, against Velhagen and King as operators of business under the names “VICTORIA COURT, GMT CONSOLIDATED COMPANY, and VICTORIA GROUP OF COMPANIES.” The day after being served summons, the six respondent corporations filed a separate complaint (Civil Case No. 91-2192) in the RTC of Makati, Branch 150, against petitioner and another individual, seeking to nullify the Purchase Order on grounds of fraud and undue influence and to recover the downpayment. Velhagen and King then moved to dismiss Civil Case No. 91-2069 on grounds including litis pendentia (lis pendens). The trial court (Branch 63) granted the motion and dismissed the case on the ground of litis pendentia. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner then filed an amended complaint in Civil Case No. 91-2069, impleading the six respondent corporations as additional defendants, but the trial court refused to issue alias summonses to them. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court (Branch 63) correctly dismissed Civil Case No. 91-2069 on the ground of litis pendentia (lis pendens).
RULING
No. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in dismissing the case on the ground of litis pendentia. The requisites for litis pendentia are: (1) identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interests in both actions; (2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (3) the identity in the two cases should be such that the judgment that may be rendered in the pending case would, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the other case. The Court found that the first requisite was not met. In Civil Case No. 91-2069, the original defendants were Velhagen and King, sued as operators of a business under certain trade names. In Civil Case No. 91-2192, the plaintiffs were the six respondent corporations, and the defendants were Victronics Computers, Inc. and another individual. Velhagen and King were not parties in the second case. While they acted as agents for the corporations, they were not sued in that capacity in the second case, and the corporations were not originally impleaded in the first case. There was no identity of parties. Furthermore, the causes of action and reliefs sought were different: the first was for collection of a sum of money based on the contract, while the second was for annulment of the same contract on grounds of fraud and undue influence. The pendency of the second case did not justify the dismissal of the first. The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the trial court dismissing Civil Case No. 91-2069 and directed the trial court to reinstate the case, issue alias summonses to the six respondent corporations as additional defendants in the amended complaint, and proceed with the trial. The Court also ordered the consolidation of Civil Case No. 91-2069 with Civil Case No. 91-2192.