G.R. No. 226648-49 - Domingo vs. Ochoa Jr.

Sherwood Holdings Corp. (SHCI) filed on October 5, 2000 a complaint for sum of money (Civil Case No. Q-00-42105) against Absolute Management Corp. (AMC) before the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 80.
SHCI alleged advance payments totaling ₱12,277,500.00 for 27,000 pieces of plywood and 16,500 plyboards, made by Metrobank check nos. 1407668502, 140768507, 140768530–534, all crossed and payable to AMC, delivered in 1998 to AMC’s general manager, Jose L. Chua.
Chua died in 1999, and a special proceeding for the settlement of his estate (SP No. 99-0023) was pending before the RTC of Pasay City at the time AMC filed its answer.

AMC denied knowledge of SHCI’s transactions, claimed it received no money, and counterclaimed against SHCI.
AMC filed a third-party complaint against Metrobank, alleging that if AMC were held liable to SHCI, Metrobank should be held liable on the subject checks.

Metrobank moved for a bill of particulars to clarify AMC’s answer; the RTC granted the motion but AMC failed to comply, prompting Metrobank’s motion to strike out the third-party complaint.
Metrobank moved to dismiss AMC’s third-party complaint for alleged forum shopping, arguing identity of claims in SP No. 99-0023; the RTC denied the motion.
The RTC deferred action on the motion to strike out, allowed AMC to serve written interrogatories, and repeatedly directed AMC to file a bill of particulars, which AMC failed to do.

Metrobank filed a motion for leave to admit a fourth-party complaint against Chua’s estate, seeking reimbursement if Metrobank were held liable to AMC.
In an order dated May 7, 2004 (denied reconsideration July 7, 2004), the RTC held that the claim was a “cobro de lo indebido” (quasi-contract) and fell under Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court; thus it should have been filed in the pending special proceeding (SP No. 99-0023) before RTC, Pasay City, not as a fourth-party complaint in an ordinary action.

Metrobank petitioned the CA for certiorari; the CA in its August 25, 2005 decision and November 17, 2005 resolution affirmed the RTC, holding that the fourth-party complaint was a money claim under Section 5, Rule 86 and barred in an ordinary action.
Metrobank filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, raising:

Non-compliance with Section 4, Rule 45, Rules of Court (failure to attach certain pleadings).
Entitlement to file a fourth-party complaint under Section 11, Rule 6, Rules of Court (joinder of parties).

Does Metrobank’s petition for review on certiorari comply with Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court?
Should Metrobank’s fourth-party complaint against Chua’s estate have been allowed in the RTC, QC Branch 80 proceedings?