G.R. No. 112233 July 31, 1996
COKALIONG SHIPPING LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. OMAR U. AMIN, presiding Judge of the RTC, Makati, Branch 135 and PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE & ASSURANCE, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Cokaliong Shipping Lines filed a complaint for damages against Carlos A. Go Thong Lines and its vessel master, Eugenio Manubag, Jr., before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu, docketed as Civil Case No. 11660. The suit arose from a collision between petitioner’s M/V Filipinas Tandag and Go Thong Lines’ M/V Our Lady of Lourdes on April 3, 1992. Petitioner alleged the collision was due to the defendants’ negligence. In their Answer, the defendants denied negligence and filed a counterclaim, asserting that the collision was caused by the faulty maneuvers and negligence of petitioner’s officers and crew.
Subsequently, on February 1, 1993, respondent Prudential Guarantee & Assurance, Inc., as the insurer of Go Thong Lines, filed a complaint against petitioner Cokaliong before the RTC of Makati, docketed as Civil Case No. 93-319. Prudential, having paid its insured, claimed it was subrogated to the rights of Go Thong Lines and sought to recover the amount paid. The allegations of negligence in the Makati complaint mirrored those in the counterclaim filed by Go Thong Lines in the Cebu case.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss the Makati case on the ground of litis pendentia.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, finding all requisites for litis pendentia present. First, there is identity of parties. While Prudential is the nominal plaintiff in the Makati case, it sued as a subrogee of Go Thong Lines, thereby stepping into the shoes of its insured. Thus, the real parties in interest in both actions are Cokaliong and Go Thong Lines. The reversal of their positions as plaintiff and defendant does not negate this identity.
Second, there is identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, founded on the same facts. Both the Cebu case and the Makati case fundamentally seek to establish whose negligence—that of Cokaliong’s crew or Go Thong Lines’ crew—caused the collision, in order to claim damages arising from that single incident. The cause of action in the insurer’s subrogation suit is derived from the very same factual claim of negligence asserted in the prior Cebu case.
Third, the judgment in the pending Cebu case would constitute res judicata in the Makati case. The Cebu court’s determination of which party was at fault would conclusively settle the issue of liability, thereby barring re-litigation in the Makati case. Furthermore, the counterclaim already filed by Go Thong Lines in the Cebu case partakes of a complaint, making the filing of a separate suit by its subrogee for the same cause impermissible. The Orders of the RTC of Makati were set aside and Civil Case No. 93-319 was ordered dismissed.