G.R. No. 127276. December 3, 1998. DASMARIÑAS VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC., BERNARDO LICHAYTOO, ANTONIO P. TAMBUNTING, EMIL A. ANDRES and CAPT. JERRY CODILLA, petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI (formerly Branch 66 now Branch 147) and COLEGIO SAN AGUSTIN, INC., respondents.
FACTS:

Private respondent Colegio San Agustin, Inc., a school operating within Dasmariñas Village, had a long-standing agreement with petitioner Dasmariñas Village Association, Inc. (DVA) regarding membership dues. Initially exempt, the school later agreed to pay dues equivalent to 50% of the regular village dues. From 1988 to 1991, both parties honored this agreement. In 1992, DVA demanded full payment without the discount and imposed restrictive security measures, such as barring school vehicles from certain gates and after 6:00 p.m. The school filed a petition for declaratory relief and damages (Civil Case No. 94-2062) to determine the proper dues and enjoin the security policy. The trial court dismissed this petition.
While the school’s appeal was pending, a new incident occurred in September 1995 when DVA denied entry to all vehicles attending review classes at the school. Consequently, the school filed a separate complaint for injunction and damages (Civil Case No. 95-1396). DVA moved to dismiss this second case, arguing litis pendentia and forum-shopping, but the trial court denied the motion. DVA then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via certiorari, which dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that there was no litis pendentia between the two civil cases and, consequently, no forum-shopping.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic rests on the absence of the requisites for litis pendentia, which requires 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 constitute res judicata in the other. Here, there was no identity of parties. The first case (94-2062) involved the school, its parents’ and staff associations versus DVA alone. The second case (95-1396) involved only the school as plaintiff against DVA and its individual officers as defendants. There was also no identity of causes of action. The first case primarily sought a declaration on the correct amount of membership dues—a substantial contractual issue. The second case sought to enjoin the specific, newly implemented security measures that barred vehicle access during review classes—a distinct issue concerning immediate and ongoing obstruction. Since the elements of litis pendentia were not present, the charge of forum-shopping necessarily failed. Furthermore, the denial of a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order not subject to certiorari absent grave abuse of discretion, which petitioners failed to demonstrate.