G.R. No. 137187 , August 3, 2006
Carmelita V. Lim and Vicarville Realty and Development Corporation, Petitioners, vs. Hon. Benjamin T. Vianzon, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Carmelita Lim and Vicarville Realty filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, assailing the Orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Balanga, Bataan, which denied their Motion to Dismiss and subsequent Motion for Reconsideration in Civil Case No. 6779. The civil case was a complaint for Delivery of Owner’s Duplicate Certificate of Title and Damages filed by respondents Valentin and Concepcion Garcia, seeking to annul a Deed of Sale allegedly executed in favor of the petitioners. Prior to this civil action, Lim had filed a criminal complaint for Falsification and Perjury against Valentin Garcia before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, docketed as I.S. No. 97-984. Garcia, in turn, filed a counter-complaint for Falsification against Lim and others, docketed as I.S. No. 98-095. The Provincial Prosecutor consolidated these complaints and later issued a Joint Resolution recommending the filing of an information for perjury against Garcia and dismissing his counter-charges.

ISSUE

Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the Motion to Dismiss, which was grounded on alleged forum-shopping by the respondents and the claim that the civil action was extinguished by a prior sale.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. On the procedural aspect, the Court held that an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and generally not subject to certiorari unless issued with grave abuse of discretion. The RTC’s order, while succinct, was not issued capriciously or whimsically. On the substantive issue of forum-shopping, the Court ruled that none existed. Forum-shopping requires identity of parties, rights asserted, and reliefs sought between a pending action and the one subsequently filed. Here, the criminal complaints before the prosecutor involved the determination of criminal liability for falsification and perjury, while the civil case pertained to the validity of a deed of sale and recovery of title. These are distinct causes of action with different purposes and requisite proofs. The certification against forum-shopping attached to the civil complaint was thus not defective, as it correctly stated that no other action involving the same issues was pending in any court. Regarding the claim of prior sale extinguishing the cause of action, the Court deemed this a factual matter properly to be ventilated during a full trial on the merits.