G.R. No. 123555 January 22, 1999
PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and WESTIN SEAFOOD MARKET, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Progressive Development Corporation (lessor) and private respondent Westin Seafood Market, Inc. (lessee) entered into a lease agreement for a commercial property. The contract contained provisions allowing the lessor, upon lessee’s violation (such as non-payment of rent), to automatically terminate the lease and summarily repossess the premises and the lessee’s properties therein without court action, with the lessee waiving any civil or criminal liability for such acts. Private respondent failed to pay rentals, accumulating arrears of P8,608,284.66. Pursuant to the contract, petitioner repossessed the leased premises on October 31, 1992, inventoried the movables, and scheduled a public auction. On November 26, 1992, private respondent filed a complaint for forcible entry with damages and a prayer for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or preliminary injunction against petitioner in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City. While this forcible entry case was pending, private respondent instituted another action for damages (moral, exemplary, actual, and compensatory) against petitioner in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City on June 9, 1993. Petitioner moved to dismiss the RTC damage suit on grounds of litis pendentia and forum-shopping. The RTC, instead of ruling on the motion, archived the case pending the outcome of the forcible entry case. Petitioner moved for reconsideration. Private respondent then filed an amended complaint in the RTC and applied for a TRO. The RTC denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss, admitted the amended complaint, and granted the TRO. Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition. Petitioner now seeks reversal of the Court of Appeals’ decision.

ISSUE

May the lessee, which instituted before the Metropolitan Trial Court an action for forcible entry with damages against its lessor, file a separate suit with the Regional Trial Court against the same lessor for moral and exemplary damages plus actual and compensatory damages based on the same forcible entry?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court ruled that the filing of the separate damage suit in the RTC constituted forum-shopping and violated the rule against splitting a cause of action. The forcible entry case in the MeTC and the damage suit in the RTC arose from the same act of repossession by the petitioner. The damages claimed in the RTC (moral, exemplary, actual, and compensatory) are necessarily connected to and a consequence of the alleged forcible entry. A single cause of action cannot be split into two separate suits. The Court emphasized that a party cannot, by varying the form of action or adopting a different method of presenting his case, evade the principle that the same cause of action shall not be litigated twice between the same parties. The pendency of the forcible entry case in the MeTC, which includes a claim for damages, bars the subsequent filing of the damage suit in the RTC based on the same facts. The RTC should have dismissed the damage suit on the ground of litis pendentia. The decision of the Court of Appeals was reversed, and the RTC was ordered to dismiss the damage suit.