G.R. No. 207277 . January 16, 2017.
MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC., ET AL., Petitioners, vs. EMMA CONCEPCION L. LIN, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Emma Lin filed a civil complaint for collection of sum of money and damages against petitioners Malayan Insurance and its officers, and RCBC. Lin alleged that her insured warehouses were gutted by fire and that Malayan unjustly denied her insurance claim despite a Bureau of Fire Protection certification declaring the fire accidental. She prayed for payment of the insurance proceeds, damages, and the extinguishment of her loans with RCBC. Five months after filing this civil case, Lin instituted an administrative complaint before the Insurance Commission against Malayan for unfair claim settlement practice under the Insurance Code, seeking the suspension or revocation of Malayan’s license.
Petitioners moved to dismiss the civil case on grounds of forum shopping, arguing identity of parties, causes of action, and reliefs sought. They contended that the administrative case was merely a disguised attempt to recover the insurance claim. The Regional Trial Court denied the motion, ruling the reliefs were distinct—monetary in the civil case and regulatory in the administrative case. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the filing of the civil case and the subsequent administrative case constitutes forum shopping warranting the dismissal of the civil complaint.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and held that no forum shopping was committed. Forum shopping exists when a party files multiple cases based on the same cause of action, with the same reliefs, before different courts or tribunals, to increase the chances of a favorable decision. The test is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case would amount to res judicata in the other.
Here, the Court found no identity of causes of action or reliefs. The civil case is a personal action for collection of a sum of money based on the insurance contract, seeking specific performance and damages. The administrative case is a special proceeding seeking the imposition of administrative sanctions against Malayan for alleged violations of the Insurance Code. A judgment in the administrative case to suspend Malayan’s license would not bar the civil action to enforce the insurance contract. Conversely, a judgment ordering payment in the civil case would not preclude the Insurance Commission from exercising its regulatory powers. The two proceedings can proceed independently, as they address different rights and obligations—one contractual and the other regulatory. Therefore, Lin had no obligation to declare the administrative case in her civil complaint certification, and the RTC correctly retained jurisdiction.