G.R. No. L-61756 April 19, 1989
MARIA VDA. DE TOLENTINO and GEORGE TOLENTINO, petitioners, vs. HON. FELIZARDO S.M. DE GUZMAN, Judge, Court of First Instance of Surigao del Norte and RICARDO GEE, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners were plaintiffs in a prior case (Civil Case No. 15080) for recovery of sum of money with attachment against respondent Ricardo Gee and others. Gee’s properties, including two pump boats, were attached. After trial, Gee was absolved from liability, and the Cebu court ordered the release of his attached properties. However, the sheriff reported he could not release the pump boats as they had allegedly been earlier released to petitioners and could no longer be located. Consequently, Gee filed a “Motion to Condemn the Plaintiff and the Provincial Sheriff for Damages” in the same Cebu case, seeking redress for the alleged improper release and loss of his properties.
While that motion was pending resolution by the Cebu court, respondent Gee filed a separate complaint for damages and attorney’s fees (Civil Case No. 3022) against the petitioners and the sheriff in the Court of First Instance of Surigao del Norte, presided by respondent Judge. This new complaint alleged the same core grievance: that the sheriff, in conspiracy with petitioners, improperly released the attached pump boats, causing their loss. Petitioners moved to dismiss this Surigao complaint, arguing, among other grounds, that there was another action pending between the same parties for the same cause in the Cebu court. Respondent Judge denied the motion to dismiss and the subsequent motion for reconsideration, prompting this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 3022 on the ground of litis pendentia.

RULING

Yes, the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the assailed orders, and directed the dismissal of Civil Case No. 3022. The legal logic is anchored on the principle of litis pendentia and the prohibition against forum shopping.
The elements of litis pendentia are present: (1) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions; (2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (3) the identity in the two cases should be such that the judgment that may be rendered in the pending case would, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the other case. Here, the parties in the damage claim are substantially the same—Gee versus the Tolentinos and the sheriff. The rights asserted and the relief sought (damages for the alleged wrongful release of attached properties) are identical and arise from the same factual nucleus. Crucially, the resolution of Gee’s pending motion for damages in the Cebu case would constitute res judicata on the separate Surigao complaint.
The Court condemned Gee’s act of filing a separate action while a motion addressing the identical claim was pending in the Cebu court as forum shopping. This improper conduct degrades the administration of justice by seeking a possibly favorable opinion in another tribunal, increasing the burden on the courts, and creating the risk of conflicting decisions. The Supreme Court has consistently penalized such actions, holding that they furnish grounds for the summary dismissal of the later case. The proper course for Gee was to pursue his claim within the original case in Cebu, not to initiate a redundant suit. Consequently, the respondent Judge’s failure to dismiss the complaint constituted a grave abuse of discretion.