GR 157629; (March, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 157629 March 22, 2007
J & N SHIPPING LINES, INC., Petitioner, vs. TECHNOMARINE CO., LTD. and PHILIPPINE NIPPON KYOEI CORPORATION, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Technomarine, through its local representative Philippine Nippon, sold a vessel to ASKA Shipping Corporation. ASKA issued postdated checks for payment but refused to execute a chattel mortgage as agreed. The checks were later dishonored. Subsequently, without the knowledge of the respondents, ASKA sold the same vessel to petitioner J & N Shipping Lines, Inc. Respondents then filed a complaint for annulment of sale and damages with a prayer for a writ of replevin against J & N and ASKA before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 24, Manila. The RTC dismissed the complaint, ruling that ownership had passed to ASKA and then to J & N, and that no enforceable lien existed against the vessel in favor of the respondents. Respondents withdrew their appeal from this dismissal.
While their appeal was pending, respondents filed a second, nearly identical complaint for recovery of possession/replevin against the same parties before RTC Branch 37, which issued a new writ of replevin. Petitioner moved to dismiss this second complaint on the ground of forum shopping. Branch 37 granted the motion and dismissed the second complaint. Instead of appealing this dismissal, respondents filed a petition for prohibition with the Court of Appeals to enjoin Branch 37 from implementing its dismissal order.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the petition for prohibition and reinstating the second complaint, despite it being barred by the doctrine of res judicata and constituting forum shopping.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the dismissal of the second complaint. The Ruling of RTC Branch 24 in the first case, which had become final and executory after the respondents withdrew their appeal, constitutes a final judgment on the merits. This judgment conclusively determined that respondents had no cause of action for replevin against petitioner J & N, as ownership had validly passed and no chattel mortgage was ever constituted to secure their claim.
The doctrine of res judicata bars the subsequent filing of the second complaint (Civil Case No. 02-103850) before Branch 37, as it involves the same parties, the same vessel, and the same cause of action for recovery of possession. By filing this second case while the first was still pending appeal, respondents engaged in forum shopping, an act of seeking a more favorable ruling in a different court. The Presiding Judge of Branch 37 correctly dismissed the complaint on this ground. Since the dismissal was proper and not tainted with grave abuse of discretion, the extraordinary writ of prohibition was not available to the respondents. The Supreme Court affirmed the Order of RTC Branch 24 dismissing the original complaint.