FORTUNATO PICHAY, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. MICHAEL S. KAIRUZ, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

Fortunate Pichay, et al. filed an action before the Court of First
Instance of Baguio for the annulment of a special power of attorney and
a deed of mortgage on the ground that the same are fictitious because
their consent thereto had been obtained through fraud and intimidation
(Civil Case No. 454). The complaint was later amended to include the
mother of defendant as party.

Prior to the institution of the above action, defendants commenced
Civil Case No. 423 before the same court against plaintiffs in Civil
Case No. 454. In their answer, defendants in the first case set up the
defense of lack of consent and consideration, as well as fraud, duress
and intimidation in the execution of the special power of attorney and
the deed of mortgage involved in the second case. In Civil Case No.
454, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, as well as an answer,
wherein they pleaded as a defense that there was another action pending
between the same parties upon the same cause of action which warrants
the dismissal of the case. Considering this plea, the court deferred
action on the motion to dismiss until after Civil Case No. 423 shall
have been decided.

Finally, after allowing plaintiffs in the instant case to present
all their evidence and after the lower court had rendered judgment in
Civil Case No. 423, it rendered the appealed judgment dismissing
plaintiffs’ complaint with costs, and ordering plaintiffs jointly to
pay defendants the sum of P500.00 as attorney’s fees.

The case is now before us, after having been certified by the Court
of Appeals, where appellants raise as main issue the dismissal of their
complaint by the trial court on the ground that there was another
action pending between the same parties which involves the same subject
matter and cause of action, apart from the fact that judgment has
already been rendered therein which has the effect of barring the
present case on the ground of res judicata. Another issue raised refers
to the impropriety of imposing upon appellants the obligation to pay
attorney’s fees to appellees’ counsel.

We find no merit in this appeal. To begin with, it cannot be
disputed that the present case is predicated upon the plea that the
power of attorney and the deed of mortgage which were allegedly
executed by appellants are null and void on the ground that their
consent thereto was obtained through fraud and intimidation. Here, the
principal defendant is Michael Kairuz. On the other hand, in Civil Case
No. 423, the complaint was filed by Michael Kairuz to recover certain
amount of money making as defendants the same parties who appear as
plaintiffs herein. And in both cases the parties brought to the fore
the validity of the same documents. Then while the second case was
pending trial, the court rendered judgment in the first case dismissing
the complaint based on the finding that said two documents are null and
void. The court even went further. It ordered plaintiffs to pay to
defendants the sum of P12,650.00, as damages, plus an additional sum of
P2,000.00 as attorney’s fees. These facts show that the two cases
really involve the same parties, the same subject matter, and the same
cause of action. Indeed, appellants herein not only obtained in the
first case the relief they sought to obtain in the second but even
obtained a judgment in their favor by way of damages and attorney’s
fees. The attitude of appellants in insisting on prosecuting the second
case in spite of such favorable judgment is indeed beyond comprehension.

We also find no merit in the claim that the trial court erred in
imposing the penalty of attorney’s fees upon appellants considering the
inconsistent stand taken by them which prompted the trial court to make
the following remark:

“* * * Plaintiffs were warned time and time again
both by counsel for defendant as well as this Court that the issues are
identical and that this case should not proceed. Plaintiffs insisted in
going ahead with the case. In order to give them their day in court in
the event that the issues should prove different, this Court allowed
plaintiffs to present all their evidence which in the final analysis
proved the identity of the issues with Case 423. Accordingly this
present action is completely unfounded and attorney’s fees must be
charged plaintiffs.”

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellants.

Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L. Barrera, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.