Facts:
Dasmarinas Village Association, Inc. and the individual petitioners
Bernardo Lichaytoo,
Antonio P. Tambunting,
Emil A. Andres, and
Capt. Jerry Codilla sought the reversal of the
Court of Appeals decision dated May 13, 1996, which dismissed their
petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus in CA-G.R. SP No. 39695 and denied their motion for reconsideration on November 15, 1996. The controversy arose from the relationship between petitioner
Dasmarinas Village Association, Inc. (DVA) and private respondent
Colegio San Agustin, Inc., which had operated a school within the Dasmarinas Village premises since 1969 and was exempted from paying village dues based on DVA by-laws. After DVA proposed that the school become a “special member” subject to corresponding “membership dues” in lieu of the regular dues, Colegio San Agustin agreed to the arrangement. In 1975, DVA increased its membership dues by twenty-five percent, and the school acceded. On December 5, 1988, the school proposed that it be assessed permanent “membership dues” equivalent to fifty percent of the village dues collectible from residents, and DVA accepted. From 1988 to 1991, the parties complied with this arrangement. In 1992, however, DVA sent a membership dues assessment of
P550,000 marked “No Discount for 1992,” which prompted Colegio San Agustin to protest and ask that the agreed fifty percent discount be honored. The school also complained that DVA prohibited access to some village gates for vehicles bearing the school’s stickers and implemented a security measure barring vehicle entry after
6:00 p.m., regardless of whether individuals needed entry for school-related transactions after that time. On June 24, 1994, Colegio San Agustin filed in the Regional Trial Court of Makati (Branch 39) a petition for
“Declaratory Relief and Damages with Preliminary Injunction,” docketed as Civil Case No. 94-2062, to determine the proper amount due as membership dues and to enjoin DVA from implementing its security policy; DVA moved to dismiss, and on September 21, 1994 the trial court granted the motion and dismissed the petition. Aggrieved, Colegio San Agustin appealed to the Court of Appeals as CA-G.R. CV No. 48733 while Civil Case No. 94-2062 was still pending appellate review. Meanwhile, on September 9, 1995, during review classes preparatory to the
NEAT and
NSAT, DVA denied entry to all vehicles going to the school campus, and warned that only those with the regular DVA sticker could enter during the review period. On September 13, 1995, Colegio San Agustin filed a new case in the Regional Trial Court of Makati (Branch 66) for
“injunction and damages,” docketed as Civil Case No. 95-1396. DVA moved to dismiss Civil Case No. 95-1396 alleging (a) the presence of another action involving the same parties and for the same cause and (b)
violation of the anti-forum-shopping rule; the trial court denied the motion on October 16, 1995 and admitted the supplemental complaint. DVA then elevated the October 16, 1995 denial to the Court of Appeals via certiorari, but the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, holding that
no litis pendentia existed between Civil Case No. 94-2062 and Civil Case No. 95-1396 due to lack of identity of rights, reliefs, and causes of action. DVA therefore filed the present petition, arguing that Civil Case No. 95-1396 should be barred by Civil Case No. 94-2062 on grounds of litis pendentia, and further challenging the denial of its motion to dismiss.
Issues:
Whether Civil Case No. 95-1396 should be barred by Civil Case No. 94-2062 on the ground of
litis pendentia, and whether DVA’s challenge to the denial of its motion to dismiss was properly cognizable.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: