G.R. No. L-50471. June 29, 1979.
JULIO SALACUP, petitioner, vs. HON. TOMAS P. MADDELA, JR., and FILIPINAS MILLS, INC., respondents.

FACTS

On December 12, 1973, petitioner Julio Salacup and respondent Filipinas Mills, Inc. entered into a contract for the sale of a rice thresher, with the purchase price payable in palay. A dispute arose regarding the exact monetary equivalent of the palay to be delivered. On April 5, 1976, Salacup filed a complaint for recovery of overpayment (Civil Case No. III-194) with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Isabela, alleging he had delivered palay worth P51,557 for a thresher priced at only P45,000. Subsequently, on June 7, 1978, Filipinas Mills filed a separate complaint for breach of contract/collection (Civil Case No. 115997) with the CFI of Manila, claiming Salacup had delivered only 1,058 cavans of palay, leaving an unpaid balance of 442 cavans under the same contract.
Salacup moved to dismiss the Manila case on the ground of lis pendens, arguing that the Isabela case involved the same parties and cause of action and was filed earlier. Filipinas Mills opposed, contending that lis pendens required valid service of summons in the first case, which it claimed had not been effected. The respondent Judge denied the motion to dismiss and a subsequent motion for reconsideration, prompting Salacup to file this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 115997 on the ground of lis pendens.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the challenged orders, and ordered the dismissal of Civil Case No. 115997. The Court held that all requisites for lis pendens as a ground for dismissal under Rule 16 were present. First, there was identity of parties, as the cases merely involved the same parties suing each other (Ben Tan in the first case was sued as a representative of Filipinas Mills). Second, there was identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, as both actions arose from the same contract and sought monetary relief based on the alleged incomplete or excessive performance of the same prestation. Third, a judgment in the earlier-filed Isabela case would constitute res judicata in the later Manila case.
The Court rejected the respondent’s argument that valid service of summons was a prerequisite for lis pendens to apply. Citing the Rules of Court and jurisprudence (Pampanga Bus Company, Inc. v. Ocfemia), the Court ruled that a civil action is commenced upon the filing of the complaint, not upon service of summons. Since Civil Case No. III-194 was filed on April 5, 1976, it was already pending when Civil Case No. 115997 was filed on June 7, 1978. The respondent Judge therefore erred in not dismissing the later case. The dismissal was without prejudice to any counterclaim Filipinas Mills may assert in the pending Isabela case.