Case Digest (G.R. No. 160736)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 160736)
Facts:
Air Ads Incorporated v. Tagum Agricultural Development Corporation (TADECO), G.R. No. 160736, March 23, 2011, Supreme Court Third Division, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court.
The respondent in the underlying civil action was TADECO, while Air Ads Incorporated is the petitioner here, impleaded as a third‑party defendant in Civil Case No. 27802‑2000 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 15, Davao City. The principal plaintiff in the RTC action was Elva O. Pormento, seeking recovery for the death of her husband. TADECO, as defendant, filed an answer with compulsory counterclaims and a third‑party complaint impleading Air Ads and Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation (Pioneer); the RTC admitted that original third‑party complaint on April 14, 2000.
TADECO’s original counsel, ACCRA Law Office, later filed a notice withdrawing only the third‑party complaint as to Pioneer, which the RTC granted on June 29, 2000. TADECO then engaged Dominguez Paderna & Tan (Dominguez Law Office) to represent it only with respect to the claim against Pioneer and filed a “substitute third‑party complaint” that contained allegations only against Pioneer (including an allegation that Pioneer insured the Cessna 550 involved). The RTC granted the motion to admit the substitute third‑party complaint on August 28, 2000.
After admission of the substitute complaint, Air Ads moved to dismiss the third‑party complaint as to it, contending the substitute pleading superseded and thereby dropped Air Ads as a party. The RTC denied Air Ads’ motion to dismiss on July 25, 2002, and denied its motion for reconsideration on September 20, 2002, holding that the notice of dismissal only referred to Pioneer and that Air Ads had not been dismissed as a third‑party defendant.
Air Ads filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Court of Appeals (CA), C.A.-G.R. SP No. 73418, which the CA dismissed on November 13, 2002 for defective and insufficient verification and certification against forum shopping. Air Ads then filed a new petition in the CA (C.A.-G.R. SP No. 74152) with the proper board resolution and certification. The CA issued a resolution on February 24, 2003 denying and dismissing the second petition on its merits, finding that the third‑party complaint against Air Ads had never been dismissed; the CA denied Air Ads’ motion for reconsideration on November 13, 2003. Air Ads brought the present petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court under Rule 45, assailing the two CA resolutions.
Issues:
- Did the filing of an identical petition after the dismissal of the first petition for defective verification and certification constitute forum shopping or render the second petition barred by res judicata?
- Did the filing and admission of the substitute third‑party complaint against Pioneer have the legal effect of superseding and expunging the original third‑party complaint as to Air Ads?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)