MAGDALENA BLAZA, REYNALDO B. CHOA, MARIA LOURDES C. RAMOS, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND NORBERTO RAMOS, EVANGELINE C. FIGUERRES, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND CARLOS FIGUERRES, HELEN C. GO, JO…

Blaza versus Choa

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Magdalena Blaza and her co-petitioners against private respondents Rizalina Familara-Choa and John Choa. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to annul two orders of a trial court in Olongapo City that refused to dismiss, with prejudice, the counterclaims filed against them in a suit for reconveyance and partition. The case matters because it is a clean teaching vehicle on forum shopping and its twin anchors, the elements of litis pendentia, meaning a pending suit between the same parties on the same cause, and the elements of res judicata, meaning a matter already finally adjudged. It shows that sharing one subject property is not enough; identity of parties and of the rights and reliefs asserted must also concur.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed a complaint for reconveyance, partition, injunction, and damages before Branch 74 of the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City. The respondents answered and set up counterclaims. The petitioners then moved for summary dismissal with prejudice of those counterclaims, arguing that the respondents had committed forum shopping by later filing a separate petition for reconstitution of the same title before Branch 75. Branch 74 denied the motion in an order dated January 21, 2013, finding no willful and deliberate forum shopping. It denied reconsideration on April 3, 2013. The petitioners went straight to the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, and the Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit.

Facts

Sometime in 1968, Magdalena Blaza and her husband, Choa Gue, bought a house and lot in Olongapo City. Because of legal obstacles, including Choa Gue's Chinese citizenship and the minority of their other illegitimate children, they registered the property in the name of their eldest illegitimate child, Johnny Choa, subject to an implied trust. The owner's duplicate copy of the title stayed with Johnny's brother, Reynaldo Choa.

Johnny died on January 6, 2011. His wife, Rizalina, and his son, John, at once claimed ownership of the property. On April 8, 2011, the petitioners sued them for reconveyance, partition, injunction, and damages. The respondents answered, denied any implied trust, and set up counterclaims: to surrender the owner's copy of the title, to account for Johnny's bank deposits and his shares and dividends in a corporation, and to pay moral damages and litigation expenses.

On March 28, 2012, Rizalina filed a petition for reconstitution of the title before Branch 75, alleging that the owner's copy had gone missing. Reynaldo intervened, and then moved to dismiss, saying the copy was not lost but in his possession. Branch 75 granted that dismissal. In the first case, however, Branch 74 refused to dismiss the counterclaims, and that refusal is what the petitioners brought to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not Rizalina committed willful and deliberate forum shopping in filing the petition for reconstitution while alleging that the owner's copy of the title was lost.
• Whether or not the counterclaims in the reconveyance case should be summarily dismissed with prejudice.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5 of Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

It is the duty of the plaintiff or principal party to 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.

This is the rule the Court measures the reconstitution petition against, and it finds no violation because the two actions lack identity of parties and of reliefs.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that no forum shopping was committed. Forum shopping requires that the same party institute two or more actions on the same cause of action, simultaneously or successively, hoping that one court will rule favorably. The decisive test is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. Here the first action was filed by the petitioners against the respondents, who merely interposed counterclaims, while the reconstitution petition was filed by Rizalina against the Register of Deeds of Olongapo City. There is therefore no identity of parties. Nor is there identity of rights and reliefs, because the counterclaims also seek an accounting for corporate finances and bank deposits and an award of damages.

On the second issue, the Court held that the trial court committed no grave abuse of discretion in refusing to dismiss the counterclaims with prejudice. Since the petition for reconstitution was not willful and deliberate forum shopping, the sanction of summary dismissal did not arise.

Doctrine

Forum shopping is the institution of two or more actions or proceedings involving the same parties for the same cause of action, simultaneously or successively, on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. The elements of litis pendentia are identity of parties, or at least of interests represented; identity of the rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, founded on the same facts; and identity of the two cases such that judgment in one, whichever party wins, would amount to res judicata in the other. The elements of res judicata are a final former judgment, rendered by a court with jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter, on the merits, with identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action. Absent these identities, the certification against forum shopping under Section 5 of Rule 7 is not violated, and summary dismissal with prejudice is unwarranted.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit, so the respondents prevailed and the orders of Branch 74 denying the dismissal of the counterclaims stand.

Remember This

Memorize the line that forum shopping turns on identity of parties, rights, and reliefs, tested through litis pendentia and res judicata. Examiners use this case to test whether a counterclaim and a separate petition over the same title, filed by different parties for different reliefs, amount to forum shopping.