G.R. No. 110480 ; June 29, 2001
BANGKO SILANGAN DEVELOPMENT BANK, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, JUDGE PABLO D. ATIENZA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 14, Regional Trial Court, Fourth Judicial Region, Nasugbu, Batangas and LEONIDA UMANDAL-BAUSAS, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Leonida Umandal-Bausas maintained Savings Account No. 04-3652 with petitioner Bangko Silangan Development Bank (BSDB), Nasugbu Branch. On April 23, 1990, she attempted to withdraw P5,000.00 but was informed by the bank teller that her brother, Antonio Umandal, had already withdrawn P15,000.00 on April 16, 1990, allegedly with her written authorization, leaving a balance of only P800.00. Respondent Bausas claimed the signatures on the withdrawal slip were forgeries. She sought assistance from Edmundo Villadolid, who wrote letters to petitioner BSDB and later to the Central Bank, complaining about the unauthorized withdrawal. Petitioner BSDB, after investigation, maintained the withdrawal was proper and the signatures were genuine. Respondent Bausas sought help from the NBI, and a case was filed with the Provincial Prosecutor. A news item about the incident was published in the People’s Journal Tonight on September 17, 1990. Aggrieved, petitioner BSDB filed a complaint for damages (Civil Case No. 91-56185) before the RTC of Manila against respondent Bausas, Villadolid, and several journalists, alleging the publications were defamatory. In their answer, respondent Bausas and Villadolid raised a compulsory counterclaim. Subsequently, on February 13, 1992, respondent Bausas and her husband filed a separate complaint for a sum of money with damages (Civil Case No. 221) against petitioner BSDB before the RTC of Batangas, Branch 14, seeking recovery of the P15,000.00 withdrawal plus balance, interests, and various damages. Petitioner BSDB filed a motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 221 on grounds of litis pendentia, splitting a cause of action, multiplicity of suits, and forum-shopping. The RTC of Batangas denied the motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, holding that an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and generally not subject to certiorari, and that the causes of action in the two cases were different.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the denial of the motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 221 on the ground of litis pendentia.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The elements of litis pendentia are: (a) identity of parties, or at least such as representing 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 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. The Court found no identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for. In the Manila case (Civil Case No. 91-56185), petitioner BSDB is the plaintiff seeking damages for alleged libel. In the Batangas case (Civil Case No. 221), respondent Bausas is the plaintiff seeking recovery of a sum of money based on an alleged unauthorized withdrawal from her savings account. The primary reliefs are distinct—one is for damages from libel, the other is for recovery of a bank deposit. The facts from which the reliefs arise are also different: the Manila case is based on the publication of the news item, while the Batangas case is based on the bank’s alleged negligence in allowing an unauthorized withdrawal. A judgment in one would not constitute res judicata in the other. Furthermore, the compulsory counterclaim in the Manila case, while related to the same transaction, does not bar the filing of a separate action, as the rules allow a permissive counterclaim to be filed separately. The Court also noted that the denial of a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order not subject to appeal, and certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. The proper course for the petitioner was to file an answer and proceed to trial.