EMERENCIANA D. MEDINA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. ALMA D. MALAPAJO, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
AZCARRAGA-JACOB, J.:
The Antecedent Facts
The facts on records show that on 08 July 2002 plaintiff Medina filed with the court a quo an action for Specific Performance and Damages with Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order against defendant Malapajo. The case, docketed as Civil Case No. V-064-07-2002, involved an unpaid loan[3] which plaintiff obtained from the defendant on 03 September 1998, and was secured by a real estate mortgage[4] over a parcel of land situated at Bangbang Street, Roxas City, identified as Lot 733 of the Capiz Cadastre, comprising an area of 1,024 square meters, and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-31739.
After the defendant filed an answer, the court a quo set the case for pre-trial conference. However, no pre-trial was conducted due to the prolonged series of postponements at the instance of plaintiff.
On 23 October 2003, plaintiff moved to archive the case for a period of three (3) months in order for her to consolidate all resources so she may be able to forge an amicable settlement with defendant. In her motion, plaintiff also prayed for the dismissal of the case if after such period no settlement or revival is made. This motion was favorably granted by the court a quo in the Order of 27 October 2003.
Five (5) months later, in March 2004, the court ordered the retrieval of the case from the archives and set the same for pre-trial conference. On the scheduled pre-trial conference on 01 June 2004, the trial court issued an Order[5] dismissing the case, the full text of which reads as follows:
On October 27, 2003, this case was ordered archived, without opposition from the defendant, upon motion by the plaintiff with the condition that the same be dismissed if no settlement or revival is made at the end of three (3) months. Since no settlement or revival was brought to the attention of the Court after the lapse of three (3) months, the Court ordered the retrieval of the records from the archive and set the pre-trial on any available pre-trial calendar of the Court, which was set for today, June 1, 2004 at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon. When the pre-trial of this case was called, however, only counsel for the defendant appeared, without the plaintiff and counsel. The defendant moved for the dismissal of this case pursuant to the condition attached by the plaintiff in her motion for the archival of this case to the effect that if no settlement or revival was made within three (3) months, then the instant case be dismissed. Finding the defendant’s motion well taken, the same is hereby granted. The instant complaint by the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.[6]
Later, on 21 July 2004, plaintiff filed the complaint[7] a quo for “nullity of foreclosure and damages” alleging, among other things, that that her total outstanding obligation of P1,200,000.00 as of 04 April 2003 is inaccurate or erroneous inasmuch as the 7% interest charge per month imposed by defendant, as well as the penalties she allegedly incurred, are unconscionable and excessive; and that the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage over Lot 733 conducted on 01 April 2003 was null and void.
In response, defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss[8] on grounds of res judicata and forum shopping. Defendant alleged that the complaint is barred by res judicata considering the dismissal of the first complaint for specific performance. Defendant also averred that the complaint violates the rule on forum shopping because the certification of non-forum shopping attached to it failed to state the fact of dismissal of the complaint for specific performance.
The Ruling of the Trial Court
In due time, the court a quo issued its now assailed Order,[9] granting the motion to dismiss and decreeing the dismissal of the complaint a quo. The pertinent portions of the order read:
…[I]t is clear that the first and the second case between the same parties, involving the same property, is anchored or based on one and the same cause of action which is the alleged erroneous computation in the loan obligation of the plaintiff to the defendant. A cause of action may give rise to different remedies, and though the remedy prayed for in one case is not the same as that sought in a subsequent case, if both remedies arise from the same cause of action, there is res adjudicata. Thus, if, in the former case, plaintiff sought specific performance of a contract and, in the second rescission thereof, but the cause of action in the two cases is the same, that is, non-performance on the part of the defendant, the judgment rendered in the first case in favor of the defendants is res adjudicata in the second.
If all the elements of res adjudicata mentioned above are present, then the judgment rendered is conclusive between the parties and their successors in interest “with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto.” In other words, the judgment is binding not only as to matters actually litigated and determined therein, but as to other matters necessarily involved.
Plaintiff admits that “the first case cited is already dismissed and abandoned having become moot and academic.” Thus, the court finds the defendant’s motion to dismiss tenable under Sec. 1 (f) and (h) of Rule 16, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure as amended, in addition to her claim that the plaintiff is guilty of forum shopping.
ACCORDINGLY, the defendant’s motion to dismiss on the grounds: 1. that the plaintiff is guilty of forum shopping; and 2. that the plaintiff cause of action is barred by prior judgment is GRANTED. The instant case against the defendant is DISMISSED.[10]
With the denial of her motion for reconsideration[11] by the court a quo’s subsequent Order[12] dated 27 May 2005, plaintiff (now appellant) interposed the instant appeal ascribing the following errors to the trial court, to wit: (i) in finding that there is identity of causes of action between the first case for specific performance (Civil Case No. V-064-07-2002) and the second case for nullity of foreclosure (Civil Case No. V-064-04); and (ii) in dismissing second complaint (Civil Case No. V-064-04) on grounds of forum shopping and res judicata.
The Ruling of this Court
The appeal is bereft of merit.
It has been held that “[t]here is forum shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another.”[13] The test for determining whether a party is guilty of forum shopping is whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other.[14]
Here, the principle of res judicata finds no application because not all of its concurring requisites are present, namely: (a) the former judgment must be final; (b) the court that rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (c) it is a judgment on the merits; and (d) there is—between the first and second actions—an identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action.
While it is clearly borne by the facts on records that the complaint for specific performance (Civil Case No. V-064-07-2002) and the complaint a quo (Civil Case No. V-064-04) substantially involve the same parties, subject matter and causes of action, the inquiry of whether the Order dated 01 June 2004 was a judgment on the merits is the more crucial issue that needs to be judiciously considered.
It cannot be disputed that the dismissal of the first complaint for specific performance was grounded on appellant’s own Motion to Archive the Case dated 23 October 2003, wherein she prayed that the case be dismissed if after three months no settlement or revival is made.
A plain reading of the pertinent text of the 01 June 2004 Order of dismissal in Civil Case No. V-064-07-2002 clearly reveals that “the defendant moved for the dismissal of this case pursuant to the condition attached by the plaintiff in her motion for the archival of this case to the effect that if no settlement or revival was made within three (3) months, then the instant case be dismissed.”
Pursuant to Rule 17, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, as amended by the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, such dismissal was not a result of an adjudication on the merits and is thus without prejudice, viz.:
…Dismissal upon motion of plaintiff. – Except as provided in the preceding section, a complaint shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff’s instance save upon approval of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. x x x Unless otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal under this paragraph shall be without prejudice. x x x
In fine, although it is quite certain that the “specific performance” and the “nullity of foreclosure” involve the same parties, subject matter and causes of action, as was correctly found by the court a quo, the Order dated 01 June 2004 summarily disposing of the “specific performance” suit did not in any way amount to res judicata insofar as the case a quo is concerned.
However, the Court hastens to take due notice that appellant failed to state the fact of dismissal of the first complaint for specific performance in the certification of non-forum shopping in her second complaint for nullity of foreclosure.
Under this circumstance, there is no gainsaying that appellant’s second complaint for nullity of foreclosure would have been susceptible to dismissal, although definitely not upon the ground of res judicata invoked by the trial court, but rather, and more accurately so, for violation of the provision of the rule on forum shopping.
Corollarily, Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94[15] categorically requires a certification against forum shopping to be incorporated in the complaint, petition, application, or any other initiatory pleading, or at least contained in a sworn certification annexed and simultaneously filed with such complaint. Thus,
x x x, the following requirements, in addition to those in pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court and existing circulars, shall be strictly complied with in the filing of complaints, petitions, applications or other initiatory pleadings in all courts and agencies other than the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, and shall be subject to the sanctions provided hereunder:
1. The plaintiff, petitioner, applicant or principal seeking relief in the complaint, petition, application or other initiatory pleading shall certify under oath in such original pleading, or in a sworn certification filed therewith, to the truth of the following facts and undertakings: (a) he has not theretofore commenced any other action or proceedings involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; (b) to the best of his knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or agency; (c) if there is such action or proceeding which is either pending or may have been terminated, he must state the status thereof; and (d) if he should thereafter learned that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, he undert akes to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court or agency wherein the original pleading and sworn certification contemplated herein have been filed.
x x x.
2. Any violation of this Circular shall be a cause for the dismissal of the complaint, petition, application or other initiatory pleading, upon motion and after hearing. x x x.
It is worth recalling that Administrative Circular No. 04-94 was issued to supplement another circular in pari materia– i.e., Revised Circular No. 28-91.[16] Significantly, the former expanded or broadened the application and coverage of the latter. It is worthy to note as well that Revised Circular No. 28-91 was in turn a revision of Circular No. 28-91[17] which contained basically the same requirement and sanctions.
With the promulgation of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure[18] the stringent requirements of the certification of non-forum shopping have been adopted with some modifications in Section 5 of Rule 7, Section 2 of Rule 42, Section 6 of Rule 43, Section 4 of Rule 45, Section 3 of Rule 46, Section 4 of Rule 47, Section 5 of Rule 64, and Sections 1, 2, and 3 of Rule 65.
The regulatory mandate of the rule on non-forum shopping has thus become so defined and basic that non-compliance with it can hardly find justification, especially so now that Circular No. 28-91[19] has been in effect for more than a decade.
We can only note, with sadness, that up until now there still are a number of initiatory pleadings filed in courts in obvious disregard, if not ignorance, of the stringent requirements regarding proper certification of non-forum shopping. Sadly so was appellant’s second complaint before the court a quo. Whether it was deliberate or not, appellant’s failure or omission to mention in the certification of non-forum shopping the fact of previous dismissal of the first complaint indubitably constitutes a gross violation of Administrative Circular 04-94, Revised Circular No. 28-91, and Section 5,[20] Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, which all entail the same sanction of dismissal of the complaint.
In Rudecon Management Corporation v. Singson,[21] the High Court categorically said that “under Section 5, Rule 7, of the Revised Rules of Court, a complaint may be dismissed for failure of the plaintiff to inform the court of the filing of the same or similar complaint within five (5) days from such filing. The same or similar complaint referred to in the rule refers to a complaint wherein the parties, causes of action, issues and reliefs prayed for, are identical to those in the first complaint…”
Melo v. Court of Appeals[22] was more enlightening on this matter, viz.:
xxx xxx xxxMore importantly, this section specifically states that the “(f)ailure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing.” This will obviate former practice of some trial courts in allowing amendment of the incomplete pleading for the incorporation therein of the certificate against forum shopping. That was erroneous since this undertaking against multiple filing of cases is not part of the operative facts required to be alleged in an initiatory pleading, such as allegations on the cause of action, but is a special requirement for admission of the initiatory pleading for filing in court, hence the absence thereof is not curable by mere amendment.
Instead, the case shall be dismissed on motion but, just like the practice under Revised Circular No. 28-91 in the appellate courts, such dismissal shall be without prejudice. This more liberal rule is distinguishable from the effects of dismissal of the non-compliance with the Rules under the provisions of Sec. 3, Rule 17 which presupposes the pendency of the case, whereas what is contemplated in this section is the initiation of the case. The case may consequently be refiled with the balance of the reglementary period but subject to the provisions on prescription of actions.
On the whole, We hold that the court a quo has acted in accordance with the clear mandate of the rules in dismissing appellant’s second complaint for non-disclosure of the fact of dismissal of the first complaint.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed Order dated 30 November 2004 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Roxas City, dismissing plaintiff-appellant’s complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Foreclosure and Damages, is AFFIRMED with the modification that the ground for such dismissal is not res judicata but solely on violation of the rule on forum shopping.
SO ORDERED.
Ingles,* and Quijano-Padilla, JJ., concur.
* Acting Chairman per Office Order No. 14-14-GTI dated 26 June 2014 vice Justice Hernando.
[1] Records, pp. 30-31.
[2] Captioned “Emerenciana D. Medina, Plaintiff versus Alma D. Malapajo, Defendant.”
[3] See Promissory Notes dated 03 September 1998 and 11 October 1999; Annexes “A” and “C”, Complaint; Records, pp. 6 and 10, respectively.
[4] See Real Estate Mortgage dated 3 September 1998 and Amendment of Real Estate Mortgage dated 11 October 1999; Annexes “B” and “D”, Complaint; Records, pp. 7-9 and 11-12, respectively.
[5] Annex “1”, Motion to Dismiss dated 13 August 004; Records, p. 30.
[6] Emphasis supplied.
[7] Records, pp. 1-5.
[8] Records, pp. 30-35.
[9] See Note 1.
[10] Emphasis supplied.
[11] See Motion to Reconsider Order of Dismissal dated 19 December 2004; Records, pp. 51-54.
[12] Records, p. 63.
[13] Villanueva v. Adre, 27 April 1989, 178 SCRA 876; Crisostomo v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 6 November 1989, 179 SCRA 146; Earth Minerals Exploration, Inc. v. Macaraig, Jr., 11 February 1991, 194 SCRA 1; First Philippine International Bank v. Court of Appeals, 24 January 1996, 252 SCRA 259; and Fortich v. Corona, G.R. No. 131457, 24 April 1998, 289 SCRA 624.
[14] Buan v. Lopez, 145 SCRA 34 cited in First Philippine International Bank, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., supra. See also Prubankers Association v. Prudential Bank & Trust Company, 302 SCRA 74 (1999); Spouses Tirona v. Hon. Alejo, G.R. No. 129313, 10 October 2001; R & M General Merchandise v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. G.R. No. 144189, 5 October 2001; Republic v. Carmel Development, Inc., 377 SCRA 459.
[15] Took effect on 1 April 1994, and titled “Additional Requisites for Civil Complaints, Petitions and other Initiatory Pleadings filed in all Courts and Agencies, other than the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, to Prevent Forum Shopping or Multiple Filing of such Pleadings.”
[16] Additional Requisites for Petitions filed with the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals to Prevent Forum Shopping or Multiple Filing of Petitions and Complaints.
[17] Issued on 4 September 1991.
[18] Took effect on 1 July 1997.
[19] Took effect on 1 January 1992.
[20] Section 5. Certification against forum shopping. – The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.
[21] G.R. No. 150798, 31 March 2005.
[22] G.R. No. 123686, 16 November 1999, 318 SCRA 94.