G.R. No. 174356 ; January 20, 2010
EVELINA G. CHAVEZ and AIDA CHAVEZ-DELES, Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ATTY. FIDELA Y. VARGAS, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Fidela Y. Vargas owned a five-hectare land in Sorsogon. Petitioner Evelina G. Chavez, with her family, stayed on a portion of the land, planted coconut seedlings, and supervised harvests. They agreed to divide the gross sales from the land. As Fidela was busy with her law practice, Evelina undertook to hold Fidela’s share in trust. Fidela filed a complaint for recovery of possession, rent, and damages with a prayer for appointment of a receiver against Evelina and her daughter Aida Chavez-Deles before the RTC of Bulan, Sorsogon, alleging failure to remit her share and refusal to turn over administration. Petitioners claimed the RTC lacked jurisdiction as it involved an agrarian dispute. The RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, finding petitioners were tenants. Fidela appealed to the CA and filed a motion for appointment of a receiver. The CA granted the motion and placed the land under receivership. Fidela also filed three estafa cases in the RTC of Olongapo City and a complaint for dispossession with the DARAB against the petitioners, in all of which she similarly sought appointment of a receiver.

ISSUE

1. Whether or not respondent Fidela is guilty of forum shopping for filing identical applications for receivership in the criminal cases before the RTC of Olongapo City and the administrative case before the DARAB.
2. Whether or not the CA erred in granting respondent Fidela’s application for receivership.

RULING

1. No, respondent Fidela is not guilty of forum shopping. The elements of forum shopping are: (1) identity of parties, or parties representing the same interests; (2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, founded on the same facts; and (3) identity such that any judgment in one action would amount to res judicata in the other. Here, the various suits involved different causes of action and sought different reliefs. The civil action sought recovery of possession based on failure to account for fruits; the estafa cases accused misappropriation of harvest shares; the DARAB complaint sought dispossession for allegedly cutting coconut trees without authority. Receivership is not an action but an auxiliary remedy, a mere incident of the suit. The grant of receivership in one case would not amount to res judicata on the merits of the others.
2. Yes, the CA erred in granting the application for receivership. Under Section 1(b), Rule 59 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, receivership requires that the property is in danger of being lost, removed, or materially injured, necessitating its protection or preservation. Fidela’s main grievance was deprivation of her share of the produce, not that the land or its productive capacity would disappear, be wasted, or materially injured. Receivership is a harsh remedy granted only in extreme situations, and Fidela failed to prove a clear right to its issuance. Furthermore, the RTC had dismissed the main action for lack of jurisdiction, holding the issues properly belonged to the DARAB. It would have been more prudent for the CA to first provisionally determine that the RTC had jurisdiction before granting receivership, which is but an incident of the main action. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the CA Resolutions, lifted the receivership, and directed the CA to resolve the appeal with dispatch.