GR 131692; (June, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 131692 June 10, 1999
Felipe Yulienco, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals (Ninth Division) and Advance Capital Corporation, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Advance Capital Corporation (ACC) filed a collection suit against petitioner Felipe Yulienco before the RTC of Quezon City to recover over P30 million based on four promissory notes. Yulienco moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds of litis pendentia, forum-shopping, and splitting a cause of action. He argued that ACC’s claim should have been raised as a compulsory counterclaim in a separate case, Special Civil Case No. 93-2521, which was pending before the RTC of Makati. The Makati case was an injunction suit filed by Yulienco to restrain ACC from foreclosing certain mortgages. The Quezon City RTC denied the motion to dismiss, finding the promissory notes in the collection case were not the subject of the Makati injunction case. The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the RTC’s denial of the motion to dismiss, specifically regarding the grounds of litis pendentia, splitting a cause of action, and forum-shopping.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The elements of litis pendentia are not present. There is no identity of causes of action between the two cases. The Quezon City case is an ordinary action for collection of a sum of money based on specific promissory notes. In contrast, the Makati case is a special civil action for injunction to prevent the foreclosure of mortgages. The reliefs sought and the facts upon which the suits are based are distinct. Consequently, ACC’s collection claim was not a compulsory counterclaim in the injunction suit, as there is no logical connection or same transaction between Yulienco’s attempt to restrain foreclosure and ACC’s demand for payment on the separate notes. A compulsory counterclaim must arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the opposing party’s claim, which is absent here. With no identity of causes of action, there can be no splitting of a single cause of action. Forum-shopping likewise does not exist, as it requires identity of parties, rights asserted, and reliefs sought, which are not present. The factual findings of the Court of Appeals, showing the separateness of the two actions, are binding.