GR 145908; (January, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 145908 ; January 22, 2004
Development Bank of the Philippines, petitioner, vs. Pingol Land Transport System Company, Inc., Remedios D. Pingol, Jesusito L. Pingol and Josephine Pingol-Silo, respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Pingol Land Transport System Company, Inc. (PLTSCI) obtained loans from petitioner Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), secured by a chattel mortgage on buses. Upon default, DBP extra-judicially foreclosed the properties. PLTSCI filed a complaint for damages with injunction (Civil Case No. 93-3121) before the Makati RTC to annul the foreclosure. While that case was pending, the foreclosure sale proceeded with DBP as the highest bidder. Subsequently, PLTSCI’s president filed a “Motion to Withdraw Complaint” in the Makati case before DBP filed its answer.
While the motion to withdraw was pending resolution, PLTSCI filed a second complaint for annulment of foreclosure, replevin, and damages (Civil Case No. 94-3192) before the Naga RTC, based on the same facts. DBP moved to dismiss the Naga complaint on the ground of forum shopping, attaching a certification from the Makati court on the first case’s pendency. The Naga court, while annulling the writ of replevin due to a fake bond, denied the motion to dismiss. It ruled that the prior motion to withdraw the Makati complaint terminated the proceedings there, leaving no pending case at the time the Naga suit was filed.
ISSUE
Whether the Naga RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss the second complaint on the ground of forum shopping.
RULING
Yes, the Naga RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. Forum shopping exists when a party institutes two or more actions based on the same cause, with the same relief, before different courts, hoping for a favorable decision in one. The test is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present: identity of parties, rights, and reliefs. Here, both complaints involved the same parties, arose from the same loan and foreclosure, and sought essentially the same relief of annulling the foreclosure sale. The Naga court erroneously concluded that the first case was no longer pending. A motion to withdraw a complaint under Rule 17, Section 1 of the Rules of Court constitutes a dismissal by the plaintiff only if filed before the answer. However, such a motion requires court approval if a provisional remedy has been granted, which was the case as PLTSCI had sought injunctive relief. More critically, the Makati court had not yet acted on the motion to withdraw when the Naga case was filed; it later denied the withdrawal. Therefore, the first case was very much pending, making the filing of the second case a clear act of forum shopping warranting dismissal.