GR 79983; (August, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 79983 August 10, 1989
BUGNAY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. CRISPIN C. LARON, Judge of the Court of First Instance (RTC), Branch 44, Dagupan City, P AND M AGRO-DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and REGINO RAVANZO, JR., respondents.
FACTS
The City of Dagupan leased a lot to respondent P and M Agro-Development Corporation. Due to P and M’s alleged breaches, the City filed an action for rescission (Civil Case No. D-6157). A decision was rendered in favor of the City based on a joint manifestation. However, while P and M’s motion for reconsideration of that decision was pending, the City entered into a new lease contract over the same property with petitioner Bugnay Construction. P and M then filed an action (Civil Case No. D-8664) to annul the new lease and enjoin construction. That court dissolved a temporary restraining order. Subsequently, Regino Ravanzo, Jr., counsel for P and M, filed a nearly identical action (Civil Case No. D-8696) in his personal capacity as a taxpayer, which was assigned to Branch 44 presided by respondent Judge Laron. Judge Laron issued a restraining order and later a writ of preliminary injunction against Bugnay Construction.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Laron committed grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of Civil Case No. D-8696 and issuing the injunctive writ.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court found grave abuse of discretion and granted the petition for certiorari. The filing of Civil Case No. D-8696 by Ravanzo constituted forum-shopping, a willful and deliberate act designed to secure a favorable ruling from another court after failing to obtain an injunction in the first case. The two complaints filed by P and M and its counsel involved identical parties, rights asserted, and reliefs prayed for regarding the validity of the lease to Bugnay. The law and jurisprudence expressly prohibit such splitting of causes of action and duplication of suits. Judge Laron should have dismissed the second case outright for litis pendentia, as the first case was still pending. By entertaining the second suit and issuing the injunction, he facilitated the forum-shopping scheme, thereby failing in his duty to protect the court’s processes from abuse. The Supreme Court ordered the dismissal of both subsequent cases, dissolved the injunction, and directed the original rescission case to proceed, with a strict admonition to Judge Laron.