GR L 61468; (December, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-61468 December 8, 1982
Lord M. Marapao, petitioner, vs. The Honorable Rafael T. Mendoza, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu and Gemma B. Castillo, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Lord Marapao, a lawyer, attended a convention in Cebu City and stayed at Hotel de Mercedes. Upon checking out, respondent Gemma Castillo, the hotel desk clerk, allegedly informed him in front of others that his bill included the cost of a missing ashtray from his room. The ashtray was later recovered. Marapao filed a Complaint for Damages against Hotel de Mercedes (the Bohol Case) in Tagbilaran City on September 15, 1981, but did not implead Castillo as a defendant.
Subsequently, on February 15, 1982, Castillo filed her own Complaint for Damages against Marapao (the Cebu Case) in Cebu, contending he willfully imputed malicious acts to her. Marapao moved to dismiss the Cebu Case on the ground of litis pendentia, citing the pendency of the Bohol Case. The respondent Judge denied the motion to dismiss, prompting this Petition for Certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the Motion to Dismiss the Cebu Case on the ground of litis pendentia.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, finding the criteria for litis pendentia under Section 1(e), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court were present. The criteria require: (1) identity of parties, or at least parties representing the same interests; (2) identity of rights asserted and reliefs founded on the same facts; and (3) such that any judgment in one case would constitute res judicata in the other.
Here, while Castillo was not a named defendant in the Bohol Case, she shares an identity of interest with her employer, Hotel de Mercedes, the defendant therein, as the claims for damages in both suits arise from the exact same incident at the hotel. A decision in the Bohol Case, whether in favor of Marapao or the hotel, would be res judicata in the Cebu Case, as an award of damages to one party would logically preclude a similar award to the other arising from the same transaction. Dismissal is also warranted to avoid multiplicity of suits. The Court directed the dismissal of the Cebu Case, without prejudice to Castillo intervening in the pending Bohol Case to assert her claim for damages.