Case Digest (G.R. No. 190983)
Facts:
This case involves Surendra Gobindram Daswani as the petitioner and Banco De Oro Universal Bank (BDO) along with the Register of Deeds of Makati City as respondents. The events date back to September 17, 2004 when Daswani filed a complaint against BDO for the annulment of foreclosure proceedings involving the condominium units he and two other individuals had mortgaged to Dao Heng Bank, which BDO later acquired. Daswani alleged that BDO lacked standing as they were not original parties to the respective mortgage agreement. On January 27, 2004, BDO had extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage after Daswani's group failed to pay their obligations, leading to the auction of their properties where BDO was the highest bidder. Subsequently, on August 25, 2005, Daswani amended his complaint to include the cancellation of new Certificates of Title (CCTs) issued to BDO by the Register of Deeds during the pendency of the initial case.
On March 20, 2009, the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 190983)
Facts:
- Background of the Case
- Surendra Gobindram Daswani filed a complaint against Banco De Oro Universal Bank (BDO) seeking the declaration of nullity of foreclosure proceedings and the cancellation of the certificates of sale’s registration concerning five condominium units.
- Daswani asserted that he, along with two other Indians, had mortgaged the condominium units to secure loans from Dao Heng Bank—a loan later acquired by BDO—and that BDO was not an original party to the loan and mortgage agreement.
- Factual Developments and Procedural History
- Initial Filing (Civil Case No. 04-1075)
- Daswani filed the original complaint in September 2004 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 133 (RTC Br. 133).
- His complaint sought not only the annulment of the foreclosure sale but also the cancellation of both the annotations on the original certificates of title (CCTs) and the new CCTs subsequently issued to BDO after the Register of Deeds cancelled the earlier ones.
- On August 25, 2005, Daswani amended the complaint to include the additional relief of canceling the new CCTs and reissuance in his name.
- Dismissal of the First Complaint
- In a March 20, 2009 order, RTC Br. 133 dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice due to Daswani’s failure to pay the additional docket fees required when the complaint converted into a reconveyance claim.
- Daswani did not file a motion for reconsideration regarding this dismissal; instead, he filed a motion for leave to admit his amended complaint on June 15, 2009, claiming the fees were paid, though he failed to present supporting evidence.
- Subsequently, on August 19, 2009, Daswani filed a motion to withdraw his amended complaint, informing the court of his intent to abandon the previous complaint and refile it pursuant to the court’s dismissal without prejudice.
- Refiling and Subsequent Proceedings
- On September 16, 2009, Daswani refiled his complaint (now designated as Civil Case No. 09-843) before RTC Makati City, Branch 61 (RTC Br. 61).
- BDO responded by filing a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum shopping, asserting that:
- Daswani had filed two actions based on the same facts, parties, and issues.
- Daswani misrepresented facts in his certification against forum shopping by claiming ignorance of any pending similar case.
- Daswani again failed to pay the required docket fees.
- In its November 20, 2009 resolution, RTC Br. 61 dismissed the second complaint on the basis of litis pendentia, arguing that the first case was still pending.
- Daswani’s subsequent motion for reconsideration of the dismissal was denied by RTC Br. 61 on January 15, 2010.
- Additionally, RTC Br. 133, on February 2, 2010, granted Daswani’s motion to withdraw his earlier complaint, which underscored that he had chosen to refile anew.
- Claims Raised by Daswani and BDO
- Daswani contended that his withdrawal of the first complaint and the subsequent refiled complaint were made in good faith, clarifying that no forum shopping occurred since the first case, dismissed without prejudice, had attained finality.
- BDO, on the other hand, argued that:
- Daswani’s filing of the second complaint constituted forum shopping.
- The duplicative nature of the filings gave rise to litis pendentia and, by extension, res judicata.
- A misrepresentation occurred in the certification against forum shopping, which should lead to the dismissal of the second complaint with prejudice.
- Relief Sought by Daswani
- Daswani sought the annulment of the RTC Br. 61 dismissals (both the November 20, 2009 resolution and the January 15, 2010 order).
- He requested that the trial court give due course to his refiled complaint (Civil Case No. 09-843).
Issues:
- Main Issue
- Whether Daswani committed forum shopping by re-filing his complaint in RTC Makati City, Branch 61, while having a previous complaint already filed in RTC Br. 133.
- Subsidiary Issues
- Whether the application of litis pendentia and res judicata was proper considering the nature of the first complaint’s dismissal (dismissal without prejudice and for docket fee nonpayment).
- Whether the alleged misrepresentation in the certification against forum shopping is sustainable given the withdrawal and re-filing of the complaint.
- Whether the direct appeal via Rule 45 on pure questions of law was correctly availed in this case.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)