GR 111401; (October, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 111401 October 17, 1996
Eriberto G. Valencia, substituted by his heirs, petitioners, vs. Court of Appeals, Ricardo Bagtas and Miguel Bunye, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Eriberto Valencia filed an action for rescission of a fishpond lease contract against private respondents Ricardo Bagtas and Miguel Bunye before the RTC of Malolos. The Malolos court issued a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction ordering the lessees to surrender possession. The lessees secured a restraining order from the then Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) enjoining enforcement of the injunction and directing the parties to maintain the status quo. Despite this, the lessor, with the aid of PC men, ejected the lessees from the main hut, dried a portion of the fishpond, and prevented fish transfers, causing fish deaths and damages. A new lessee was also introduced. The IAC subsequently issued resolutions reiterating the status quo order and declaring the lessor without right of possession.
ISSUE
Should the pending action for rescission of the lease contract bar, on the ground of litis pendentia, a separate action for damages filed by the lessees arising from the lessor’s violation of the appellate court’s restraining orders?
RULING
No. The Supreme Court ruled that the action for damages was not barred by litis pendentia. For litis pendentia to apply, three requisites must concur: identity of parties, identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, and identity with respect to the two preceding particulars such that any judgment in one would amount to res judicata in the other. Here, the cause of action in the rescission case (filed in Malolos) was based on alleged violations of the lease contract terms. In contrast, the cause of action in the damages case (filed in Manila) was predicated on the lessor’s willful violation of the IAC’s restraining orders, which constituted actionable torts independent of the lease contract. The rights asserted and the reliefs sought were fundamentally different. The rescission suit aimed to terminate the lease, while the damages suit sought compensation for injuries sustained from defying court orders. Therefore, a judgment in the rescission case would not constitute res judicata on the claim for damages arising from the contemptuous acts. The two actions could proceed independently.