REMEDIAL LAW Digest
REMEDIAL LAW Digest
Remedial law; Special Civil Action; Petitioner for Certiorari; The function of a
Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is the correction of
errors of jurisdiction. This is special mode of appeal may be availed of when a
court or tribunal gravely abuses it discretion by exercising the same capriciously,
arbitrarily or whimsically.
Same; Ordinary Civil Action; Petition for Review on Certiorari; The function of
a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 is for the correction of errors of
judgment that a court or tribunal makes in the exercise of its jurisdiction. This
ordinary mode of appeal may be availed of when a party seeks to question the
inherent correctness of a decision of court or tribunal that the later might make in
the exercise of its jurisdiction.
JARDELEZA, J.:
Remedial Law; Forum Shopping; Forum shopping take place when a party
avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively,
all substantially founded on the same facts and circumstances and all raising
substantially the same issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by
some other court.
Same; Existence of Litis Pendentia Constitutes Forum Shopping; Forum
Shopping exists when the all the elements of litis pendentia are present, to wit: (a)
identity of the parties; (b) identity of the rights asserted and reliefs prayed for
which are founded on the same facts ;and (c) the identity of the aforementioned
specifics is such that any judgment rendered in one action will, regardless which
party wins, amount to res judicata in another.
FACTS: A conditional contract of sale for a printer was entered into
by Petitioner Multistiq and Respondent Minds View. Pursuant to this,
petitioner delivered several defective printers. For this reason,
respondent stopped the payment of installments. This forced
petitioner to cancel their contract. Thereafter, petitioner filed a
petition for recovery of possession and replevin for the printers with
the RTC of Pasig. Respondent then filed an answer and
counterclaimed that the former had no cause of action against the
latter as it was guilty of breach of its warranty. In the meantime,
respondent filed a complaint for the rescission of the contract with
the RTC of Davao grounded on breach of Multistiq’s warranty over
the printers. In said complaint, it sought the return of the amount it
paid under the contract.
Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss before the RTC of Davao
alleging litis pendentia and forum shopping. The RTC of Davao ruled
in its favor. This decision was reversed upon appeal with the CA
hence this case with the SC. Petitioner contends that petitioner was
guilty of forum shopping and as such, the case before the RTC of
Davao should be dismissed.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Minds View is guilty of forum
shopping.
RULING: AFFIRMATIVE. Forum shopping take place when a
party avails of several judicial remedies in different courts,
simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same
facts and circumstances and all raising substantially the same issues
either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court.
Forum shopping exists when there is litis pendentia or when upon
final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another.
Accordingly, for there to be a litis pendentia the following must be
present, to wit: (a) identity of the parties; (b) identity of the rights
asserted and reliefs prayed for which are founded on the same facts
;and (c) the identity of the aforementioned specifics is such that any
judgment rendered in one action will, regardless which party wins,
amount to res judicata in another.
All of the elements of litis pendentia are present and thus there is
forum shopping. For the first requisite, the identity of the parties are
not in issue. They are the same parties for both cases. For the second
requisite, Minds View asserted the same rights and reliefs, i.e., a right
which arises from the breach of Multistiq’s warranty. Accordingly, in
the complaint for recovery of possession with replevin pending at the
RTC of Pasig, Minds View counterclaimed that Multistiq had no
cause of action against it as it was in breach of its warranty. On the
other hand, the complaint for rescission of contract filed at the RTC
of Davao was likewise founded on the breach of warranty. In this
instance, Minds View split its cause of action for the recovery of the
amount it paid under the contract which is not allowed under the
rules. Consequently, it could have been pleaded in the case pending
before the RTC of Pasig. As to the third requisite, the sameness of
both cases is such that any decision in one case would constitute a res
judicata in the other.