THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 242486, June 10, 2020
PHILIPPINE COLLEGE OF CRIMINOLOGY, INC., MA. CECILIA BAUTISTA-LIM, RODOLFO VALENTINO F. BAUTISTA, MA. ELENA F. BAUTISTA, JEAN-PAUL BAUTISTA LIM, MARCO ANGELO BAUTISTA LIM, EDUARDO F. BAUTISTA, JR., CORAZON BAUTISTA-JAVIER, SABRINA BAUTISTA-PANLILIO, MA. INES V. ALMEDA, ROSARIO R. DIAZ, AND ATTY. RAMIL G. GABAO, PETITIONERS, V. GREGORY ALAN F. BAUTISTA, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
There is forum shopping when, between two (2) actions, there is identity of parties, causes of action, and reliefs sought. Absolute identity is not required. Identity of causes of action ensues when actions involve fundamentally similar breaches of the same right-duty correlative. In such instances, separate proceedings will have to consider substantially the same evidence, engendering possibly conflicting interpretations on fundamentally the same incidents and unnecessarily expending judicial resources.
This resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure praying that the assailed Decision2 and Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals, which granted the appeal of Gregory Alan F. Bautista (Gregory) be reversed and set aside.
The assailed Court of Appeals Decision granted respondent Gregory's appeal, set aside the Regional Trial Court's ruling, which dismissed the Complaint for Specific Performance filed by Gregory on account of forum shopping and for lack of merit, and remanded the case to the Regional Trial Court for the continuation of the proceedings. The assailed Court of Appeals Resolution denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration.
Petitioner Philippine College of Criminology was founded in 1953 by Supreme Court Associate Justice Felix Angelo Bautista. He served as its President and Board Chairperson until his death in 1985. Thereafter, his son, Eduardo J. Bautista (Eduardo Sr.) took over as President and Chairperson. Five (5) of the parties to this case are Eduardo Sr.'s children: Gregory, and petitioners Ma. Cecilia Bautista-Lim (Cecilia), Rodolfo Valentino F. Bautista (Rodolfo), Ma. Elena F. Bautista (Elena), and Eduardo F. Bautista, Jr. (Eduardo Jr.).4
On May 18, 2006 Eduardo Sr. issued Presidential Order No. 1, which provided that "[i]n the event of [his] demise or permanent incapacity to act as President and Board Chairperson or whenever [he] choose[s] to relinquish [his] position, [respondent] EVP Gregory Alan F. Bautista shall become President and Board Chair[person]."5 It further stipulated that Gregory's siblings "shall render full and unconditional support to the incumbent in accordance with the above-stated line of succession[.]"6
In conformity with Presidential Order No. 1, Gregory, Cecilia, Rodolfo, Elena, and Eduardo Jr. signed a Certificate of Acquiescence, which stated: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
We, the undersigned hereby certify that we have read, understood and we are in full accord with the above. Likewise we hereby obligate ourselves to obey and follow the provisions thereof under the pain of sanctions above provided as well as other sanctions which the President Board Chairman has the legal authority to impose.7On September 26, 2006, Eduardo Sr. issued a Memorandum Order indicating that on September 13, 2006, he had relinquished the position of President in favor of Gregory.
The test for determining forum shopping is settled. In Yap v. Chua, et al.: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryForum shopping, then, concerns similarity in parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought. It is not necessary that there be absolute identity as to these.To determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping, the most important factor to ask is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another; otherwise stated, the test for determining forum shopping is whether in the two (or more) cases pending, there is identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought.For its part, litis pendentia "refers to that situation wherein another action is pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, such that the second action becomes unnecessary and vexatious." For litis pendentia to exist, three (3) requisites must concur: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryThe requisites of litis pendentia are: (a) the identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interests in both actions; (b) the identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other.On the other hand, res judicata or prior judgment bars a subsequent case when the following requisites are satisfied: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary(1) the former judgment is final; (2) it is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it is a judgment or an order on the merits; (4) there is - between the first and the second actions - identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action.38 (Citations omitted)
While it is true that the parties to the first and second complaints are not absolutely identical, this court has clarified that, for purposes of forum shopping, absolute identity of parties is not required and that it is enough that there is substantial identity of parties.40 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)Cause of Action is the basis for invoking legal reliefs. It concerns the right allegedly violated and the act or omission that breaches the right or the duty implicit in it. In Swagman Hotels & Travel Inc. v. Court of Appeals:41
Cause of action, as defined in Section 2, Rule 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, is the act or omission by which a party violates the right of another. Its essential elements are as follows:In ascertaining whether multiple suits relate to a single cause of action, the test is whether there is the possibility that courts will, in different proceedings, consider substantially the same evidence such that there is the possibility of diverging interpretations. This engenders needless conflict, confusion, and duplication of judicial resources. Umale v. Canoga Park Development Corporation43 explained: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
- A right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created;
- An obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and
- Act or omission on the part of such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief.42 (Citation omitted)
Generally, a suit may only be instituted for a single cause of action. If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment on the merits in any one is ground for the dismissal of the others.Riviera Golf Club, Inc. v. CCA Holdings, B.V. further elaborated on the "ultimate test" for ascertaining identity of cause of action: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Several texts exist to ascertain whether two suits relate to a single or common cause of action, such as whether the same evidence would support and sustain both the first and second causes of action (also known as the "same evidence" test), or whether the defenses in one case may be used to substantiate the complaint in the other. Also fundamental is the test of determining the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of the filing of the first complaint.44 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
It is a settled rule that the application of the doctrine of res judicata to identical causes of action does not depend on the similarity or differences in the forms of the two actions. A party cannot, by varying the form of the action or by adopting a different method of presenting his case, escape the operation of the doctrine of res judicata. The test of identity of causes of action rests on whether the same evidence would support and establish the former and the present causes of action.Identity of causes of action, like identity of parties, does not mean absolute identity. As discussed in Heirs of Arania v. Intestate Estate of Sangalang:46
We held in Esperas v. The Court of Appeals that the ultimate test in determining the presence of identity of cause of action is to consider whether the same evidence would support the cause of action in both the first and the second cases. Under the same evidence test, when the same evidence support and establish both the present and the former causes of action, there is likely an identity of causes of action.45 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)
"Identity of causes of action does not mean absolute identity. Otherwise, a party could easily escape the operation of res judicata by changing the form of the action or the relief sought. The test to determine whether the causes of action are identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence will sustain both actions, or whether there is an identity in the facts essential to the maintenance of the two actions. If the same facts or evidence would sustain both, the two actions are considered the same, and a judgment in the first case is a bar to the subsequent action." In this case, the same evidence will be necessary to sustain the causes of action in the two cases which are unequivocally based on the same set of facts. While it may be true that the respondents raised as an additional assignment of error in the petition for certiorari the DARAB's issuance of the writ of execution pending appeal, they nevertheless sought the nullification of the DARAB decision. Hence, in truth and in fact, the two petitions are based on the same cause of action.47 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)Respondent here pursued two (2) successive actions: first, an action for quo warranto (docketed as Civil Case No. 11-125408); and second, an action for specific performance (docketed as Civil Case No. 12-127276). The Quo Warranto Petition sought petitioner Cecilia's ouster and respondent's restoration as President and Board Chairperson. The Complaint for specific performance sought respondent's restoration as Board Member.
| By authority of the Court: |
(SGD) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG III | |
Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 8-28.
2 Id. at 37-58. The April 12, 2018 Decision was penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon A. Cruz and Socorro B. Inting of the Special Twelfth Division of the Court of Appeals, Manila.
3 Id. at 29-36. The October 8, 2013 Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos and concurred in by Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez (now a member of this Court) and Ramon A. Cruz of the Special Former Special Twelfth Division of the Court of Appeals, Manila.
4 Id. at 39.
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 Id. at 40.
8 Id. at 40-41.
9 Id. at 41.
10 Id. at 41 and 65.
11 Id. at 42-43.
12 Id. at 43.
13 Id. at 49-50.
14 Id. at 67-68.
15 Id. at 68.
16 Id. at 44.
17 Id.
18 Id. at 45 and 67.
19 Id. at 44-45.
20 Id. at 45.
21 Id. at 45-46.
22 Id. at 46.
23 Id. at 53.
24 Id. at 47.
25 Id. at 38 and 68.
26 Id. at 47.
27 Id. at 59-81. The Decision was penned by Judge Maria Victoria A. Soriano-Villadolid of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 24.
28 Id. at 72-80.
29 Id. at 37-58.
30 Id. at 29-36.
31 Id. at 8-28.
32 Id. at 122.
33 Id. at 157-159.
34 Id. at 140-149
35 Id. at 149-151.
36 Id. at 152-155.
37 787 Phil. 367 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
38 Id. at 387-388.
39 738 Phil. 773 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
40 Id. at 797.
41 495 Phil. 161 (2005) [Per C.J. Davide, Jr., First Division].
42 Id. at 169.
43 669 Phil. 427 (2011) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
44 Id. at 435.
45 Id. at 666-667.
46 G.R. No. 193208, December 13, 2017, 848 SCRA 474 [Per J. Martires, Third Division].
47 Id. at 498-499.
48Rollo, p. 137.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary