G.R. No. 175507 - Ching vs. Cheng

Case Summary (G.R. No. 175507)

Key Dates and Procedural Milestones

Relevant dates from the record: Antonio Ching was murdered on July 18, 1996. The first civil complaint was filed on October 7, 1998 (Civil Case No. 98-91046); amended March 22, 1999. The RTC granted a defendants’ motion to dismiss in the first case on November 13, 2001 (with leave to file appropriate pleading within 15 days). Plaintiffs filed a new complaint (second case, Civil Case No. 02-103319) on April 19, 2002. Plaintiffs moved to dismiss that second case on November 11, 2002; the RTC ordered dismissal without prejudice on November 22, 2002. Petitioners filed motions for reconsideration; meanwhile plaintiffs filed a third case (Civil Case No. 02-105251). The RTC issued an omnibus order on July 30, 2004 resolving both the motion for reconsideration in the second case and the motion to dismiss in the third case. The Court of Appeals issued decision on March 23, 2006; the Supreme Court rendered the challenged disposition reviewed here and ordered the RTC to proceed with Civil Case No. 02-105251.

Issues Presented

(1) Whether the dismissal of the second case operated as a bar to the filing of the third case under the “two‑dismissal rule” (Rule 17, Section 1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure). (2) Whether respondents committed forum shopping by filing the third case while petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of the second case remained pending.

Factual Background (limited to the record)

The dispute arose from competing claims to the estate and property titles of Antonio Ching, alleged to be substantial. Petitioners and respondents advance competing assertions of heirship and of transactions (an alleged agreement and waiver for P22.5 million, an affidavit of settlement naming a sole heir, alleged extra-judicial settlements and deeds of sale). After Antonio Ching’s death, criminal investigation named Ramon Ching a suspect. The civil litigation history reflects multiple filings, amendments, motions to dismiss, and transfers among RTC branches.

Procedural History in the Trial Courts and Appellate Proceedings

The first case (Oct. 1998) was amended (Mar. 1999) and defendants (including Po Wing Properties) moved to dismiss for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction. The RTC granted that motion (Nov. 13, 2001) but allowed plaintiffs 15 days to file an appropriate pleading. Plaintiffs subsequently filed the second case (Apr. 19, 2002) which was raffled and ultimately consolidated back to Branch 6. Plaintiffs moved to dismiss the second case (Nov. 11, 2002); the RTC granted dismissal without prejudice (Nov. 22, 2002) on the basis that summons had not been served and no responsive pleadings had been filed. Petitioners moved for reconsideration. While that motion was pending, respondents filed the third case (Civil Case No. 02-105251). The RTC issued an omnibus order (July 30, 2004) denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration (in the second case) and denying petitioners’ motion to dismiss the third case. The CA dismissed the first certiorari petition (Mar. 23, 2006) on the ground that the two‑dismissal rule did not apply because the first dismissal was at the defendant’s instance. The present petition for review followed.

Applicable Constitutional and Procedural Law

Because the decision under review was rendered in 2014, the Supreme Court applied the 1987 Constitution as the constitutional framework. Procedurally, the Court’s analysis centered on the Rules of Civil Procedure: principally Rule 17 (Dismissal of Actions, Sections 1–3) and Rule 16 (Motions to Dismiss, Section 1(b) and Section 5 on the effect of dismissal). Foundational principles concerning litis pendentia, res judicata, and the prohibition against forum shopping, as developed in jurisprudence, were also applied.

Rule 17 and Rule 16 — Legal Principles Explained

Rule 17 distinguishes dismissals at the plaintiff’s instance (Section 1 — dismissal by notice prior to service of answer; Section 2 — dismissal upon motion of plaintiff with leave of court where counterclaims exist) and dismissals for plaintiff’s fault (Section 3 — dismissal on motion of defendant or court for failure to prosecute or comply with rules, generally with prejudice). Rule 16 governs motions to dismiss by defendants, including lack of jurisdiction (Section 1[b]); Section 5 of Rule 16 lists certain grounds (res judicata, prescription, extinguishment, statute of frauds) where dismissal bars refiling. The “two‑dismissal rule” (Rule 17, Section 1) operates to convert a plaintiff’s second voluntary dismissal into an adjudication on the merits (bar to refiling) when both dismissals were caused by the plaintiff.

Application of the Two‑Dismissal Rule to the Record

The Court determined that the two‑dismissal rule did not apply because the two prior dismissals were not both at the plaintiffs’ instance. The first dismissal resulted from a defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 16 — a dismissal at the defendant’s instance — and therefore is not one of the two dismissals contemplated by Rule 17, Section 1. The second dismissal (Nov. 22, 2002) was at the plaintiffs’ instance (they moved to dismiss the second case), and the RTC expressly ordered that dismissal to be without prejudice. Because the first dismissal was not a plaintiff‑caused dismissal, the necessary precondition for invoking the two‑dismissal rule (two voluntary dismissals by the plaintiff) was not satisfied.

Petitioners’ Alternate Argument That the First Dismissal Became With Prejudice

Petitioners argued that the trial court’s grant of 15 days to file an appropriate pleading in the first case, and respondents’ failure to do so, converted the earlier dismissal into a dismissal for plaintiff’s fault (Rule 17, Section 3) and thus an adjudication on the merits. The Court rejected this theory. The initial dismissal was a judicial grant of a defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; the allowance of 15 days to file an appropriate pleading did not negate the character of the dismissal as one entered at the defendant’s instance under Rule 16. The Court emphasized that the record shows the first dismissal was effected by the defendants’ motion, and that the mere failure to comply with a subsequent permissive instruction did not transmute a Rule 16 dismissal into a Rule 17(3) dismissal on plaintiff’s fault.

Nature and Effect of the Second Dismissal

The Court stressed that the second dismissal was expressly ordered to be without prejudice by the RTC, and that general jurisprudence presumes dismissals under Rule 17(1) to be without prejudice unless the order provides otherwise. The second dismissal therefore did not operate as a bar to refiling on its face, and could not alone support application of the two‑dismissal rule given the nature of the first dismissal.

Forum Shopping, Litis Pendentia, and the Court’s Balancing

The Court found that respondents committed forum shopping by filing the third case while the motion for reconsideration in the second case remained pending. The elements of litis pendentia (identity of parties, identity of rights/relief, and identity of cause such that judgment in one would be res judicata in the other) were present. Normally, a finding of forum shopping triggers severe sanctions, including summary dismissal of related actions. However, the Court exercised restraint: it recognized policy r

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 175507)

Case Citation and Procedural Posture

Supreme Court, Second Division, G.R. No. 175507; Decision promulgated October 8, 2014; reported at 745 Phil. 93.
Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 assailing: (1) order dated November 22, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 6 dismissing Civil Case No. 02-103319 (the second case) without prejudice; and (2) omnibus order dated July 30, 2004 denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
The Court of Appeals previously rendered a decision on March 23, 2006 in CA-G.R. SP. No. 86818 dismissing petitioners’ certiorari petition; the present petition is a review of that appellate disposition.
Branch 6 of the RTC, presided over by Acting Judge Amalia R. Andrade, issued the challenged orders. The first certiorari case before the Court of Appeals was docketed as CA-G.R. SP. No. 86818; the second certiorari case was docketed as CA-G.R. SR No. 89433.

Parties and Nature of Case

Petitioners: Ramon Ching and Po Wing Properties, Inc. (Po Wing Properties).
Respondents: Joseph Cheng, Jaime Cheng, Mercedes Igne (referred to in some documents as Mercedes Igme), and Lucina Santos.
Underlying dispute arises from alleged ownership, distribution, and transfers of properties and business interests belonging to the late Antonio Ching, including alleged agreements, waivers, extra-judicial settlements, affidavits of settlement of estate, and certificates of title.
Procedural questions (dismissals, res judicata, litis pendentia, forum shopping) are the central issues decided by the Supreme Court; factual background involves a complex family feud and allegations surrounding Antonio Ching’s estate and death.

Key Facts (Factual Antecedents as Stated)

Antonio Ching allegedly owned several businesses and properties, including Po Wing Properties; his total assets were alleged to exceed P380 million.
Antonio Ching allegedly had children by two women while unmarried. Ramon Ching claims he was the only child of Antonio Ching with common-law wife Lucina Santos; Lucina disputes that characterization and maintains that Ramon was merely adopted and treated as their own.
Joseph Cheng and Jaime Cheng claim to be illegitimate children of Antonio Ching with housemaid Mercedes Igne; Ramon Ching disputed that, while Mercedes and Lucina did not dispute it.
Lucina Santos alleged that when Antonio Ching fell ill in 1996 he entrusted her with distribution of his estate and that she handed property titles and business documents to Ramon Ching for safekeeping. Antonio allegedly recovered and demanded the return of titles and documents.
Antonio Ching was murdered on July 18, 1996.
Allegations include that Ramon induced Mercedes Igne and her children (Joseph and Jaime) to sign an agreement and waiver to Antonio Ching’s estate in consideration of P22.5 million and that Ramon allegedly executed an affidavit of settlement of estate on October 29, 1996 naming himself sole heir and adjudicating the entire estate unto himself; petitioners denied these allegations and alleged undue influence and family association involvement.
Police investigation after a year found Ramon Ching as primary suspect; information was filed and a warrant of arrest issued.

Procedural History — Trial Court and Lower Proceedings

October 7, 1998: Respondents (the Chengs) filed Civil Case No. 98-91046 (the first case) for declaration of nullity of titles against Ramon Ching.
March 22, 1999: Amended complaint in first case impleaded additional defendants, including Po Wing Properties; amended complaint alleged annulment of agreement, waiver, extra-judicial settlement and certificates of title, with prayer for TRO and preliminary injunction.
Lucina Santos filed a motion to intervene and was allowed.
Po Wing Properties filed a motion to dismiss the amended first complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
November 13, 2001: RTC, Branch 6, granted motion to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction over subject matter but gave plaintiffs (the Chengs and Lucina) 15 days to file the appropriate pleading; plaintiffs did not file within the period.
April 19, 2002: The Chengs and Lucina filed Civil Case No. 02-103319 (the second case) for annulment of agreement, waiver, extra-judicial settlement of estate and the certificates of title, with prayer for TRO and preliminary injunction; this case was raffled to Branch 20 and then transferred to Branch 6 for being substantially the same as the first case.
November 11, 2002: Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the second case without prejudice.
November 22, 2002: Branch 6 granted the motion and dismissed Civil Case No. 02-103319 without prejudice on the ground that summons had not been served and defendants had not filed responsive pleadings.
December 9, 2002: Ramon Ching and Po Wing Properties filed motion for reconsideration arguing dismissal of the second case should have been with prejudice under the “two-dismissal rule” of Rule 17, Section 1, because of the prior dismissal of the first case.
During pendency of motion for reconsideration in the second case, plaintiffs filed Civil Case No. 02-105251 (the third case) for disinheritance and declaration of nullity of various documents against Ramon Ching and Po Wing Properties; this third case was raffled to Branch 6.
Petitioners opposed the third case with motions to dismiss on grounds including res judicata, litis pendentia, forum-shopping, and failure to state a cause of action; responsive pleadings were filed by both sides.
July 30, 2004: Branch 6 issued an omnibus order denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in the second case and denying petitioners’ motion to dismiss in the third case; the trial court held the dismissal of the second case was without prejudice and would not bar the third case.
October 8, 2004: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (first certiorari case) assailing the November 22, 2002 order and the portion of the omnibus order upholding dismissal of the second case.
December 28, 2004: Trial court denied motion for reconsideration in the third case; petitioners filed another certiorari petition with the Court of Appeals (second certiorari case).
March 23, 2006: Court of Appeals (Fourth Division) rendered decision dismissing the first certiorari petition, reasoning petitioners’ reliance on the “two-dismissal rule” was misplaced because the first dismissal was at the instance of defendants while the second dismissal was at the instance of plaintiffs.
Petitioners filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 contending the second dismissal was with prejudice and that res judicata barred the second and third cases.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether the trial court’s dismissal of the second case operated as a bar to the filing of the third case under the “two-dismissal rule” of Rule 17, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Whether respondents committed forum shopping by filing the third case while the motion for reconsideration in the second case was still pending.

Relevant Rules and Statutory Provisions (as Quoted or Reproduced)

Rule 17, Sections 1–3, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure:
- Section 1: Dismissal upon notice by plaintiff — plaintiff
...continue reading