G.R. No. L-27501. April 30, 1971.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS, petitioner, vs. PILAR POBRE, VICTORINO CUSI and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

The spouses Victorino Cusi and Pilar Pobre filed a damages suit against the Philippine National Railways (PNR) in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. The trial court initially ordered PNR to file a third-party complaint against United Housing Corporation, but PNR refused. Over a year later, after plaintiffs had rested their case, PNR changed its stance and moved for leave to amend its answer to include such a third-party complaint. The trial court denied the motion, citing PNR’s unreasonable delay and the prejudice to the proposed third-party defendant, which had been deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
PNR subsequently filed a petition for mandamus and certiorari with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-27123) seeking to annul the trial court’s orders and compel the admission of its amended answer. This petition was dismissed by the Court on February 1, 1967. Undeterred, PNR filed a nearly identical petition with the Court of Appeals (CA- G.R. No. 38906 -R). The appellate court dismissed this second petition on February 28, 1967, on the grounds that the writs were not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction due to the amount involved, and because an identical petition had already been dismissed by the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should give due course to PNR’s subsequent original action for mandamus and certiorari (G.R. No. L-27501) filed against the Court of Appeals to challenge its dismissal resolution and to compel it to resolve the merits of CA- G.R. No. 38906 -R.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed its prior resolution of dismissal. The legal logic is grounded on the principles of finality of judicial resolutions and the prohibition against forum-shopping. The Court clarified that whether the petition was treated as an appeal or an original special civil action was immaterial, as its merits had already been conclusively adjudicated. The core issue—the propriety of the trial court’s denial of PNR’s belated motion to amend its answer—had been raised and resolved against PNR in G.R. No. L-27123. The dismissal of that first petition was final.
By filing a second, substantially similar petition with the Court of Appeals after an adverse Supreme Court ruling, PNR engaged in repetitious litigation over the same subject matter. The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed that petition, noting the prior Supreme Court action. PNR’s filing of the instant petition (G.R. No. L-27501) constituted a third attempt to litigate the same issue. The law abhors such multiplicity of suits and vexatious litigation. A party cannot repeatedly seek relief from different courts for the same cause after receiving an adverse judgment. Therefore, the Court found no merit in the petition and declared its earlier dismissal resolution final.