GR 127058; (August, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 127058 ; August 31, 2000
CRISTINA C. QUINSAY, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, Hon. ELSIE LIGOT-TELAN, CESAR M. QUINSAY, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Cristina Quinsay and private respondent Cesar Quinsay, spouses, entered into an “Agreement for the Dissolution of the Conjugal Partnership and Separation of Property” during the pendency of Cesar’s petition for declaration of nullity of their marriage. The trial court approved this agreement on September 30, 1994. Subsequently, on January 31, 1995, Cristina filed an omnibus motion before the trial court, seeking to amend the agreement to include other conjugal properties she alleged were fraudulently concealed by Cesar and to correct asset valuations.
While this motion remained pending resolution before the trial court, Cristina filed a petition with the Court of Appeals on May 31, 1995, seeking the annulment of the trial court’s order approving the agreement, on the identical grounds of fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation. The Court of Appeals dismissed this petition on the ground of forum-shopping.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition on the ground of forum-shopping.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court found that petitioner engaged in forum-shopping. Forum-shopping exists when a party files multiple cases involving the same parties and the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, to obtain a favorable judgment. It is not limited to instances where a final judgment would constitute res judicata but also includes situations where the elements of litis pendentia are present.
Here, the elements of litis pendentia concur: (1) identity of parties in the motion before the trial court and the petition before the Court of Appeals; (2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, as both sought the amendment of the compromise agreement to include allegedly concealed properties based on the same facts; and (3) any judgment rendered in one proceeding would constitute res judicata in the other. By filing the CA petition while her motion on the exact same subject was still pending before the trial court, petitioner sought the same relief in two different fora. This constitutes forum-shopping. The proper recourse from the trial court’s order would have been an appeal or a special civil action after its resolution, not a separate petition during the pendency of the underlying motion.
Regarding the substantive claim of extrinsic fraud, the Supreme Court declined to rule on this factual matter, emphasizing that it is not a trier of facts. Such an issue requires evidentiary support and must be properly determined in the first-level proceedings before the trial court.