Case Digest (G.R. No. 167246)
Facts:
George Leonard S. Umale v. Canoga Park Development Corporation, G.R. No. 167246, July 20, 2011, Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court.On January 4, 2000, Canoga Park Development Corporation (respondent) and George Leonard S. Umale (petitioner) executed a two‑year Contract of Lease for an 860‑sq.m. lot in Ortigas Center, Pasig City, for the period January 16, 2000 to January 15, 2002. The lease limited use of the premises to a parking area and a small drivers' canteen, prohibited other commercial uses or subleasing without the lessor’s prior written consent, and required compliance with conditions imposed by Ortigas & Co. Ltd. Partnership and membership in the Ortigas Center Association.
Before the lease expired, on October 10, 2000 the respondent sued for unlawful detainer in MTC‑Branch 68, Pasig City (Civil Case No. 8084), alleging the petitioner violated the lease by constructing restaurants/other commercial units and subleasing. The MTC ruled for respondent; RTC‑Branch 155 affirmed but the case was re‑raffled to RTC‑Branch 267 where the court granted petitioner’s motion and set aside the MTC judgment, dismissing Civil Case No. 8084 as prematurely filed. The respondent then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA) (CA‑G.R. SP No. 78836).
While the CA petition was pending, on May 3, 2002 the respondent filed another unlawful detainer action in MTC‑Branch 71, Pasig City (Civil Case No. 9210), this time asserting ejectment on the ground that the lease had expired on January 15, 2002. On December 4, 2002 MTC‑Branch 71 rendered judgment for the respondent ordering vacation of the premises, payment of P150,000/month as damages from January 16, 2002, attorney’s fees and costs, and removal/restoration of commercial units. On appeal RTC‑Branch 68 reversed and dismissed Civil Case No. 9210 on the ground of litis pendentia, but still ordered petitioner to pay monthly rent of P71,500 (the contractual rent) from January 16, 2002.
The respondent sought CA review under Rule 42. The CA, on August 20, 2004, nullified the RTC decision, held there was no litis pendentia because the two suits involved different causes of action (violations vs. expiration), and reinstated the MTC‑Branch 71 decision...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Are Civil Case Nos. 8084 and 9210 between the same parties for the same cause of action so as to constitute litis pendentia, thereby requiring dismissal of the second suit?
- Did the respondent commit forum shopping by filing Civil Case No. 9210 while a prior ejectment ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)