G.R. No. 175507 October 8, 2014
RAMON CHING AND POWING PROPERTIES, INC., Petitioners, vs. JOSEPH CHENG, JAIME CHENG, MERCEDES IGNE AND LUCINA SANTOS, Respondents.

FACTS

The case stems from a dispute over the estate of Antonio Ching. Petitioners are Ramon Ching (who claims to be Antonio’s illegitimate child with respondent Lucina Santos) and Po Wing Properties, Inc. Respondents are Joseph Cheng and Jaime Cheng (who claim to be Antonio’s illegitimate children with respondent Mercedes Igne), along with Mercedes Igne and Lucina Santos. After Antonio Ching’s death in 1996, Ramon Ching executed documents adjudicating to himself the entire estate. On October 7, 1998, respondents Joseph Cheng, Jaime Cheng, and Mercedes Igne filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of titles against Ramon Ching (Civil Case No. 98-91046, the first case). The complaint was later amended to implead Po Wing Properties and to seek annulment of an agreement, waiver, and extrajudicial settlement. Lucina Santos intervened. The trial court (Branch 6, RTC Manila) granted a motion to dismiss the first case filed by Po Wing Properties on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter on November 13, 2001. Respondents were given time to file an appropriate pleading but did not do so.
On April 19, 2002, respondents filed a second complaint with substantially the same cause of action (Civil Case No. 02-103319, the second case). It was raffled to Branch 20 but later transferred to Branch 6. On November 11, 2002, respondents filed a motion to dismiss their own complaint in the second case without prejudice, which the court granted on November 22, 2002, noting that summons had not yet been served and no responsive pleading had been filed. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, arguing the dismissal should be with prejudice under the “two-dismissal rule” due to the prior dismissal of the first case.
While that motion was pending, respondents filed a third complaint (Civil Case No. 02-105251, the third case), also raffled to Branch 6. Petitioners moved to dismiss the third case on grounds including res judicata. On July 30, 2004, the trial court issued an omnibus order denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in the second case and their motion to dismiss in the third case, holding the dismissal of the second case was without prejudice and thus did not bar the third case. Petitioners filed petitions for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed them, ruling the “two-dismissal rule” did not apply because the first dismissal was upon the motion of the defendants (petitioners), not the plaintiffs. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court’s dismissal of the second case operated as a bar to the filing of the third case under the “two-dismissal rule.”
2. Whether respondents committed forum shopping when they filed the third case while the motion for reconsideration of the second case was still pending.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition.
1. On the “two-dismissal rule”: The rule under Rule 17, Section 1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure states that a notice of dismissal by the plaintiff operates as an adjudication upon the merits if filed after a responsive pleading has been served, or if it is the plaintiff’s second notice of dismissal. The Court held the rule did not apply. The dismissal of the first case was granted upon the motion of the defendant (Po Wing Properties), not upon notice by the plaintiff. Therefore, it did not constitute a first dismissal by the plaintiff for purposes of the “two-dismissal rule.” The dismissal of the second case was the first instance of dismissal upon the plaintiffs’ (respondents’) motion. Consequently, it was correctly deemed without prejudice and did not bar the filing of the third case.
2. On forum shopping: The Court found no forum shopping. The elements of forum shopping are: (a) identity of parties, (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, (c) identity of the two cases being grounded on the same facts, and (d) the reliefs being founded on the same facts and seeking the same benefits. The Court noted that the second and third cases, while related, involved different causes of action. The second case was for annulment of documents and titles, while the third case included a cause of action for disinheritance. Furthermore, the filing of the third case while the motion for reconsideration in the second was pending did not automatically constitute forum shopping, as the dismissal of the second case was without prejudice, allowing the refiling of the action. The Court also distinguished that forum shopping typically involves filing multiple cases in different courts, not successively in the same court branch.