LORD M. MARAPAO, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE RAFAEL T. MENDOZA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH VI OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CEBU AND GEMMA B. CASTILLO, R…

Respondent Judge’s Order,
denying the Motion to Dismiss Civil Case No. R-21428, entitled “Gemma
Castillo vs. Lord M. Marapao” for Damages, is sought to be reversed in
this Petition for Certiorari.

Petitioner Lord M.
Marapao is a practising lawyer residing in Tagbilaran City.  Respondent Gemma Castillo is the desk clerk
of Hotel de Mercedes at Cebu City.

From September 3 to 5,
1981, petitioner attended a convention of the Kiwanis International in Cebu
City.  Like most of the delegates,
petitioner was billeted at the Hotel de Mercedes.

On September 5, 1981,
when petitioner checked out of the hotel, private respondent allegedly
informed him, in front of other delegates, that included in his bill was the
value of one (1) ash tray reported missing from his room by the
chambermaid.  Later, said ash tray was
recovered, according to information of the chambermaid subsequently relayed to
private respondent.

As a result of said incident, and for the malicious accusation
against him, petitioner filed, on September 15, 1981, a Complaint for Damages
against Hotel de Mercedes with the Court of First Instance, Branch IV, Tagbilaran City (CC No.
3488) (Bohol Case).  Respondent employee
was not impleaded therein.

On February 15, 1982, private
respondent, upon the above general facts, filed the instant Complaint for
Damages against petitioner with respondent Court of First Instance, Branch VI, Cebu (Cebu Case), con­tending, among others, that
petitioner, taking advantage of his profession, wilfully imputed to her
the commission of malicious acts.

Petitioner moved to dismiss the Cebu Case pre­mised principally
on the pendency of another action between the same parties for the same cause
as provided in section 1(e), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court.

On March 25, 1982, respondent Court issued the challenged Order
denying the Motion to Dismiss “after a careful perusal of the grounds
relied upon in the motion”. 
Reconsideration prayed for by petitioner met the same fate.

Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari alleging
grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction by respondent
Judge, which petition we find meritorious.

The criteria for dismissal on the ground of pendency of another
action are present in this case, namely, 1) identity of parties or at least
such as representing the same interest in both cases; 2) identity of rights
asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts;
and 3) the identity on the two preceding particulars should be such that any
judgment which may be rendered on the other action will, regardless of which
party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration (Quimpo vs. de la Victoria, 46 SCRA
139 [1972]; Surigao Development Bank,
et al vs. Buslon, et al., 48 SCRA 308
[1972]).

While respondent Castillo
has not been im­pleaded in the Bohol Case, she has similar inte­rest as Hotel
de Mercedes, the defendant therein which is her employer.  Petitioner and private re­spondent both claim
damages based on the same inci­dent.  A
decision, whether in favor of petitioner or private respondent in the Bohol
Case would amount to res judicata in the Cebu Case.  Damages in
favor of one party would preclude damages in favor of the other.

There is an additional reason for dismissal, and that is, to
avoid multiplicity of suits.  (Ago Timber
Co. vs. Hon. Ruiz, et al., 21 SCRA 1381 [196]; Erlanger vs.
Villamor, 98 Phil. 1003 [1956]; Teodoro, Jr. vs. Mirasol, 99 Phil. 150 [1956]).

To protect the interests of respondent employee, she may
intervene as a party in the Bohol Case and file a counterclaim for damages
against petitioner.

ACCORDINGLY, the Order dated March 25, 1982 issued by respondent Judge of the
Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch VI, is hereby SET ASIDE, and he is hereby directed to dismiss Civil Case No.
R-21428, entitled “Gemma Castillo vs. Lord M. Marapao”.  This is without prejudice to the intervention
by pri­vate respondent, Gemma B.
Castillo, in Civil Case No. 3488 of
the Court of First Instance, Branch IV, Tag­bilaran City, entitled “Lord M. Marapao vs. Hotel de Mercedes represented by its Manager
and/or Owner.”

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Plana, Vasquez, Relova, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.