CEZAR QUIAMBAO, OWENS CARSI-CRUZ, ANTHONY QUIAMBAO vs BONIFACIO SUMBILLA and ADERITO YUJUICO
GR 192901 / GR 192903
Facts:
Pasig Case:
Bonifacio Sumbilla and Aderito Yujuico, BODs of Pacifica Inc filed three separate complaints against Cesar Quiambao, Owen Cruz, and Anthony Quiambao, and Pacifica. Bonifacio and Aderito filed a Complaint with application for the issuance of TRO and PI against the three and pacifica to enjoin the latter’s annual stockholders’ meeting on the ground that it was in violation of Pacifica’s by-laws and the Corporation Code. The petition was denied.
Manila and Makati Case:
On August 20, 2007, Bonifacio and Aderito filed with the SEC as to the conflicting principal place of business of Pacifica and sought clarification to determine the proper venue they could file an intra-corporate dispute case.
The simultaneously filed in Manila and Makati while waiting for SEC’s response. They stated in their complaints in the Manila and Makati Cases that they were constrained to file the three identical cases because there were doubts as to Pacifica's principal place of business, and that they could not afford to wait for SEC' s response to their letter to avoid the possibility of foreclosing their remedies.
On Nov. 19, 2007, SEC responded and disclosed that pacifica’s principal place of business is in Makati. Respondents then filed their notice of withdrawal in Pasig and manila cases even before any responsive pleading was filed.
The petitioners (Cesar, Owen, and Anthony) filed a petition for Certiorari in the CA raising the issue of Forum Shopping done by petitioners. CA partially granted the petition. The CA found that the summons were improperly served upon petitioners. However, as regards the issue on forum shopping, the CA stated that respondents' act of filing three separate cases was justified and that there was no willful or deliberate intent on the part of respondents to commit forum shopping.
Issue:
Whether or not the CA erred when it declared that the respondents are not guilty of forum shopping.
Ruling:
NO. A party violates the rule against forum shopping if the elements of litis pendentia are present; or if a final judgment in one case would amount to res judicata in the other. The respondents' act of filing three separate cases was justified and reasonable given the circumstances.
The respondents did file similar cases on three separate courts, however, they did so not for the purpose of increasing their chance of obtaining a favorable judgment. Rather, respondents filed their cases in three different courts because of the uncertainty as to the proper venue of their action. Moreover, immediately after their receipt of the SEC's response, respondents withdrew the Manila and Pasig Cases. Undeniably, therefore, the danger which the rule on forum shopping seeks to prevent – that tribunals render contradictory decisions - is not attendant in this case because only the Makati Case remained.
it is clear that there is no forum shopping in this case. Again, the Pasig and Manila Cases were immediately withdrawn, even before the filing of any responsive pleadings therein. This means that such withdrawal, at the instance of respondents, could not have resulted to litis pendentia or res judicata. More compellingly, there is no possibility of conflicting decisions in this case, because only the Makati Case remained.
Undeniably, respondents did not commit any act of forum shopping because there is no deliberate or willful intent on their part to receive a more favorable judgment when they filed the Makati, Pasig, and Manila Cases. All things considered, the CA did not err when it found that respondents did not engage in forum shopping.