RUDECON MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. SISENANDO S. SINGSON, RESPONDENT.

Rudecon Management versus Singson

The Case

This is a petition for review filed by Rudecon Management Corporation against Sisenando Singson, arising from a dispute over condominium units in the Tempus Place condominiums in Diliman, Quezon City. Singson sued Rudecon for reconveyance of a unit and for damages, claiming he had acquired it through a unit-swapping arrangement with the previous owner. Rudecon moved to dismiss, and when the trial court granted the motion, Singson appealed. The case matters to the Bar candidate for two reasons: it is a clean lesson on the difference between a final order and an interlocutory order, and it clarifies the three species of forum shopping under Supreme Court Administrative Circular Number 04-94.

Procedural History

Singson filed a complaint for reconveyance and damages against Rudecon before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, docketed as Civil Case Number Q-98-35444. He later filed an amended complaint. Rudecon moved to dismiss on the ground that the complaint stated no cause of action. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint. Singson moved for reconsideration and for the inhibition of the presiding judge. The trial court denied reconsideration but granted the inhibition. Singson then appealed to the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CV Number 64281.

While that appeal was pending, Singson filed a second complaint, this time against Allied Banking Corporation and the Sheriff of Quezon City, for annulment of a sheriff's foreclosure sale over a different unit, docketed as Civil Case Number Q-00-39794. Rudecon then filed an omnibus motion before the Court of Appeals in the first case, asking that Singson's appeal be dismissed for forum shopping and that Singson and his counsel be cited for contempt. The Court of Appeals denied the omnibus motion, finding no identity of parties, subject matter, or causes of action between the two cases. It also denied Rudecon's motion for reconsideration. Rudecon then filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.

Facts

The spouses Pablo and Ma. Theresa Tolentino owned a condominium unit, Room 302, in Tempus Place I. Rudecon, for its part, executed a deed of absolute sale in favor of the Tolentino spouses over its own unit, Room 404, in the same building, for 600,000 pesos. Sisenando Singson, meanwhile, owned two units in Tempus Place II, known as Unit A and Unit B.

In April 1997, the Tolentino spouses and Singson executed a deed of exchange. Under it, Singson conveyed his two units to the Tolentinos in exchange for Rooms 302 and 404. Singson then leased Room 404 to Ramon Veluz. Rudecon, however, filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Veluz, and it refused to turn over to Singson the condominium certificate of title over Room 404, which remained in Rudecon's name.

Singson then sued Rudecon for reconveyance of Room 404 and for damages, alleging that Rudecon knew of the swapping arrangement and had even written a letter advising the parties to formalize it. He also alleged that Rudecon had mortgaged the unit to Allied Banking Corporation. Rudecon moved to dismiss, arguing that it was not a party to the deed of exchange and could not be compelled to reconvey. The trial court dismissed the complaint, Singson appealed, and the dispute over forum shopping reached the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the resolutions of the Court of Appeals denying the omnibus motion to dismiss are interlocutory and therefore not appealable by petition for review under Rule 45.
• Whether or not Singson committed forum shopping by failing to report the pendency of the other case and by submitting a false certification against forum shopping.
• Whether or not there is identity of causes of action between the two cases such that forum shopping exists.
• Whether or not Singson and his counsel should be cited for contempt for multiple and deliberate forum shopping.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:

Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari.

This provision limits the remedy of petition for review to final judgments, orders, or resolutions, which is why the Court examined whether the challenged resolutions were final or interlocutory.

Supreme Court Administrative Circular Number 04-94 provides:

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.

This circular is the basis for the claim that Singson committed forum shopping by non-disclosure and by a false certification.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the mode of appeal resorted to by Rudecon was improper. The resolution of the Court of Appeals denying the omnibus motion was interlocutory in nature, because it did not finally dispose of the case but merely resolved an incident within the pending appeal. The Court distinguished a final order from an interlocutory one: a final judgment finally disposes of a case, leaving nothing more to be done, while an interlocutory order does not end the court's task of adjudicating the parties' contentions. Since only final judgments, orders, or resolutions may be assailed under Rule 45, the petition was procedurally flawed. The proper remedy would have been a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 on the ground of grave abuse of discretion, which Rudecon did not file.

On the remaining issues, the Court held that even on the merits, the petition must be denied. The Court found no forum shopping. The two cases involved different subject matters, different parties, and different reliefs. The first case concerned the reconveyance of Room 404, while the second concerned the annulment of the foreclosure sale of Room 302. There was no identity of causes of action, and the mere fact that both cases touched on the deed of exchange did not make the issues identical for purposes of the circular.

Doctrine

First, an interlocutory order is one that does not finally dispose of the case and does not end the court's task of adjudicating the parties' rights and liabilities. It may not be questioned by appeal, but only as part of an appeal from the final judgment, or by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.

Second, a petition for review under Rule 45 may assail only final judgments, orders, or resolutions of the Court of Appeals. An order denying a motion to dismiss is the classic example of an interlocutory order.

Third, forum shopping requires identity of parties, rights, and causes of action, or a violation of the undertaking and certification required by Administrative Circular Number 04-94. Where the two actions concern different subject matters and different reliefs, there is no forum shopping.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition, and the resolutions of the Court of Appeals were affirmed. Rudecon lost.

Remember This

Memorize this line: an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and cannot be appealed under Rule 45, only attacked by certiorari under Rule 65 on grave abuse of discretion. Examiners use this case to test the final-versus-interlocutory distinction and the elements of forum shopping.