GR 211563; (September, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. 211563, September 29, 2021
SANTOS VENTURA HOCORMA FOUNDATION, INC., PETITIONER, VS. MABALACAT INSTITUTE, INC., RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Petitioner Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation, Inc. (SVHFI) is the registered owner of a parcel of land occupied by respondent Mabalacat Institute, Inc. (MII) since 1983 through tolerance without paying rent. On March 14, 2002, SVHFI informed MII that it would begin charging a monthly rental fee. After MII refused to pay, SVHFI filed a Complaint for collection of a sum of money (Collection Case) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 150, docketed as Civil Case No. 02-1326. While the Collection Case was pending, SVHFI filed a Complaint for Ejectment (Ejectment Case) before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Mabalacat and Magalang, Pampanga, docketed as Civil Case No. 06-2568. MII moved to dismiss the Collection Case on the ground of forum shopping, arguing that SVHFI failed to report the filing of the Ejectment Case as required by the Rules. The RTC granted the motion and dismissed the Collection Case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision, finding SVHFI guilty of forum shopping for filing two different actions in two different courts.
ISSUE
Whether SVHFI committed forum shopping when it filed the Collection Case and the Ejectment Case in two different courts.
RULING
No, SVHFI did not commit forum shopping. The Supreme Court held that the determinative factor in forum shopping is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. The elements of forum shopping are: (1) identity of parties; (2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, founded on the same facts; and (3) any judgment rendered in one action will amount to res judicata in the other. While there is identity of parties, there is no identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for. The Collection Case seeks payment of accrued rentals, founded on the owner’s right to collect. The Ejectment Case seeks to recover possession of the property, founded on the owner’s right to possess. These are two distinct causes of action. A judgment in one would not constitute res judicata in the other because the reliefs are different and neither would be conclusive on the issues in the other case. The Court granted SVHFI’s petition and reversed the decisions of the lower courts.