G.R. No. 121534 January 28, 1998
JUAN M. CASIL, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS; HON. URBANO VICTORIO, SR., BRANCH 50, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANILA; and ANITA U. LORENZANA, respondents.

FACTS

Private Respondent Anita U. Lorenzana, the lessee of a government property, entered into a written agreement with Petitioner Juan M. Casil authorizing him to develop and administer the property after a fire, with rentals to be divided equally. Private respondent alleged that after initial remittances, petitioner failed to properly remit her share, leading her to terminate the contract and notify tenants to pay her directly. Petitioner contested this.
On December 2, 1994, petitioner filed a complaint for “Breach of Contract and Damages” (Civil Case No. 94-72362, the “First Case”) before Branch 45, RTC Manila, praying for specific performance or, alternatively, reimbursement of his investment plus damages. Private respondent filed her Answer with a counterclaim for accounting, deposit of rentals, and damages.
Subsequently, on January 11, 1995, before filing her Answer in the First Case, private respondent filed her own complaint for “Rescission of Contract, Accounting and Damages” (Civil Case No. 95-72598, the “Second Case”) before Branch 50, RTC Manila, praying for the deposit of rentals, payment of her share, arrears, damages, and cancellation of the agreement.
Petitioner moved to dismiss the Second Case on the ground of litis pendentia. The RTC denied the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, ruling that the causes of action and reliefs prayed for in the two cases were disparate, and that an interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss could not be assailed via certiorari.

ISSUE

1. Whether the two cases involve litis pendentia such that one should be dismissed.
2. Whether an interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss is assailable by certiorari under Rule 65.

RULING

1. On Litis Pendentia: Yes, the Second Case should be dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia. The requisites concur: (a) identity of parties; (b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, founded on the same facts; and (c) identity such that a judgment in one would be res judicata in the other. While the reliefs appear different—specific performance/enforcement in the First Case and rescission/cancellation in the Second—they both arise from the same contract and the same factual allegations of breach. The counterclaim in the First Case essentially seeks the same reliefs (accounting, payment of shares, damages) as the complaint in the Second Case. A judgment in the First Case, which would necessarily rule on the validity of the contract and the parties’ obligations, would constitute res judicata for the Second Case.
2. On Certiorari for Interlocutory Orders: Yes, the denial of a motion to dismiss, while generally an unappealable interlocutory order, can be questioned via certiorari under exceptions. Certiorari is appropriate when the tribunal issued the order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and when the order is patently erroneous and appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief. Here, the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss despite the clear presence of litis pendentia constituted a grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari.
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals Decision, and ordered the dismissal of Civil Case No. 95-72598 on the ground of litis pendentia.