Case Digest (G.R. No. 175256)
Facts:
Lily Lim v. Kou Co Ping a.k.a. Charlie Co, G.R. No. 175256; and Kou Co Ping a.k.a. Charlie Co v. Lily Lim, G.R. No. 179160, August 23, 2012, First Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.In February 1999 FR Cement Corporation issued withdrawal authorities authorizing certain dealers to withdraw specified numbers of cement bags. Fil‑Cement Center and Tigerbilt, through their manager Gail Borja, sold withdrawal authorities for 50,000 bags to Kou Co Ping (Co) for P3.15 million; Co in turn sold them to Lily Lim (Lim) for P3.2 million on February 15, 1999. Lim successfully withdrew 2,800 bags and later sold some authorities back to Co; when she attempted to withdraw the remaining 37,200 bags FRCC refused to honor the authorities, alleging a price increase or partial release only. Lim demanded delivery or refund; when those demands failed she sought judicial relief.
An Information for estafa (misappropriation/conversion) was filed against Co in RTC Pasig (Criminal Case No. 116377), with Lim as private complainant claiming P2,380,800 in civil damages among other reliefs. The RTC granted demurrer to evidence and acquitted Co on November 19, 2003; the court nevertheless set the civil aspect for reception of evidence and, after trial on civil liability, rendered an order on December 1, 2004 relieving Co of civil liability. Lim’s motion for reconsideration was denied and she filed a notice of appeal on the civil aspect (docketed CA‑G.R. CV No. 85138).
While that appeal was pending, Lim filed a separate civil complaint for specific performance and damages on April 19, 2005 in RTC Manila (Civil Case No. 05‑112396) naming Co and several co‑defendants and alleging breach of contract and abuse of rights arising from the sale and the withdrawal authorities. Lim sought either delivery of the 37,200 bags or their value plus damages.
Co moved to dismiss the civil complaint and Lim’s CA appeal, invoking lis pendens/litis pendentia and forum shopping. The Court of Appeals Second Division sustained Co’s motion and, by Resolution of October 20, 2005, dismissed Lim’s appeal in CA‑G.R. CV No. 85138 for forum shopping; the CA denied reconsideration. The Manila RTC, however, denied Co’s motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 05‑112396 (Dec. 6, 2005), finding different causes of action. Co filed a certiorari petition with the CA Seventeenth Division (CA‑G.R. SP No. 93395), which denied the petition on April 10, 2007 and remanded the civil complaint for further proceedings; that denial was itself challenged by Co in G.R. No. 179160.
The two petitions ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did Lim commit forum shopping by filing a civil complaint for specific performance and damages while her appeal on the civil aspect of the criminal complaint for estafa was ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)