G.R. No. 223046 , November 28, 2019
ENGRACIO U. ANG, JR., PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES BENJAMIN M. BITANGA AND MARILYN ANDAL BITANGA, MANILA GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB, INC., BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS-STOCK TRANSFER OFFICE AND WILFRED T. SIY, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Pyramid Construction Engineering Corporation (Pyramid) had a construction agreement with Macrogen Realty (Macrogen), whose president was respondent Benjamin Bitanga. After a dispute, they entered into a Compromise Agreement, with Bitanga executing a Contract of Guaranty for Macrogen’s P6,000,000.00 obligation. Macrogen defaulted. Pyramid filed a complaint for specific performance against the Bitanga spouses before the RTC-QC (Civil Case No. Q-01-45041). The RTC-QC issued a writ of preliminary attachment. The implementing sheriff issued a notice of garnishment on September 28, 2001, which Pyramid claims was intended to attach Bitanga’s shares in Manila Golf & Country Club, Inc. (MGCCI). The RTC-QC later rendered a Partial Decision holding the Bitanga spouses solidarily liable. This decision was affirmed with modification by the CA and ultimately by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 173526 . After the decision became final, the RTC-QC issued a writ of execution, and Bitanga’s MGCCI shares were sold at public auction to Pyramid, which was issued a certificate of sale. However, MGCCI refused to transfer the shares, revealing that Bitanga had sold them to respondent Wilfred Siy on March 3, 2008, and the transfer was recorded on July 30, 2008. MGCCI claimed it never received the 2001 notice of garnishment. Pyramid then filed an indirect contempt case (SCA No. Q-10-66500) against MGCCI, Bitanga, and Siy before the RTC-QC. The RTC-QC initially found them guilty but, upon reconsideration, issued an Order dated July 19, 2012, exonerating MGCCI and Siy. The court found the 2001 notice of garnishment was not addressed or delivered to MGCCI or Siy but to a different entity (Manila Polo Club), thus no court process was disobeyed. Pyramid challenged this Order via a certiorari petition before the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 127909). Meanwhile, Pyramid assigned its rights as judgment creditor to petitioner Engracio U. Ang, Jr. During the pendency of the certiorari case, petitioner filed a new complaint (Civil Case No. 13-682) before the RTC-Makati against Bitanga, MGCCI, Siy, and BPI-STO, seeking to compel MGCCI to transfer the shares to him, claiming a better right due to the prior attachment. The RTC-Makati dismissed the complaint with prejudice on October 7, 2014, primarily on the ground of litis pendentia due to the pending certiorari case before the CA. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on June 15, 2015, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the RTC-Makati erred in dismissing Civil Case No. 13-682 on the ground of litis pendentia.

RULING

No, the RTC-Makati did not err in dismissing the complaint, but not for the reason of litis pendentia. The Supreme Court sustained the dismissal on a different ground: the complaint was barred by the conclusiveness of judgment, a variant of res judicata. The July 19, 2012 Order of the RTC-QC in the indirect contempt case, which exonerated MGCCI and Siy, had attained immediate finality. That Order conclusively settled the factual finding that the notice of garnishment dated September 28, 2001, was not addressed or delivered to MGCCI or Siy, but to Manila Polo Club. Consequently, there was no valid attachment of Bitanga’s shares prior to their sale to Siy. Under the rule of conclusiveness of judgment, this finding is binding and conclusive on the parties and their privies (including petitioner as Pyramid’s assignee) and cannot be relitigated in any future lawsuit between them. Therefore, petitioner’s cause of action in Civil Case No. 13-682, which was premised on the existence of a valid prior attachment, had already been precluded by that final Order. The pendency of the certiorari case (CA-G.R. SP No. 127909) was not a proper ground for dismissal based on litis pendentia, as the two cases did not involve the same cause of action and relief. At most, it could have been a ground for suspension. The Supreme Court noted that subsequent to the filing of this petition, the CA had already dismissed Pyramid’s certiorari petition, and that dismissal had become final.