G.R. No. 150798 - Rudecon Management Corp. vs. Singson

Case Summary (G.R. No. 150798)

Factual Background

The spouses Pablo and Ma. Theresa P. Tolentino owned Room 302 in Tempus Place I Condominium, CCT No. 8876. In 1993, Rudecon Management Corporation executed a Deed of Absolute Sale conveying Room 404, CCT No. 3295, to the spouses Tolentino for P600,000.00. SISENANDO S. SINGSON owned two units in Tempus Place II, CCT Nos. 5013 and 5014. On April 18, 1997, the Tolentinos and SISENANDO S. SINGSON executed a Deed of Exchange whereby the Tolentinos received Units A and B and conveyed Rooms 302 and 404 to SISENANDO S. SINGSON.

Litigation Arising from Possession and Title

On or about September 15, 1997, Rudecon Management Corporation sued Ramon Veluz for unlawful detainer to evict him from Room 404, which Veluz had leased from SISENANDO S. SINGSON. That complaint proceeded to trial and appeal. On September 3, 1998, SISENANDO S. SINGSON filed Civil Case No. Q-98-35444 against Rudecon Management Corporation seeking reconveyance of Room 404 (CCT No. 3295) and damages. He alleged that he became the owner of Room 404 by virtue of the April 18, 1997 deed of exchange and that Rudecon Management Corporation had wrongfully sued his lessee and refused to deliver CCT No. 3295. He appended the 1993 Deed of Absolute Sale from Rudecon Management Corporation to the Tolentinos.

Amended Complaint and Additional Allegations

SISENANDO S. SINGSON amended his complaint to allege knowledge by Rudecon Management Corporation of the swapping arrangement, that the 1993 deed was valid between the original parties, that CCT No. 3295 remained in the name of Rudecon Management Corporation, and that Rudecon Management Corporation had mortgaged the unit to Allied Banking Corporation for about P2,000,000.00. He prayed for damages and for an order reconveying CCT No. 3295 to enable registration in his name, including an order to execute a notarized deed of absolute sale as transferee from Pablo Tolentino.

Trial Court Dismissal and Appeal to the Court of Appeals

Rudecon Management Corporation moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 16 on grounds that the company was not a party to the deed of exchange or the alleged verbal swapping arrangement, that the plaintiff was not the real party in interest, and that reconveyance was not an appropriate remedy given that CCT No. 3295 was validly in the defendant’s name. On April 7, 1999 the trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint. A motion for reconsideration was denied on June 30, 1999. SISENANDO S. SINGSON appealed to the Court of Appeals, docketed CA-G.R. CV No. 64281.

Parallel Action and Allegation of Forum Shopping

Separately, SISENANDO S. SINGSON filed Civil Case No. Q-00-39794 in the RTC for annulment of the sheriff’s sale of Room 302 (CCT No. 8876) and for damages against Allied Banking Corporation and the Sheriffs Office, alleging wrongful foreclosure and sale without notice. He executed a Verification and an Affidavit of Non-Forum Shopping asserting that, to the best of his knowledge, no other action involving the same issues had been commenced. Rudecon Management Corporation filed an omnibus motion in CA-G.R. CV No. 64281 seeking dismissal of SISENANDO S. SINGSON’s appeal for forum shopping and citation for indirect contempt on the ground that SISENANDO S. SINGSON failed to disclose the pendency of Civil Case No. Q-00-39794 and submitted a false certificate of non-forum shopping.

Court of Appeals Resolution

On July 31, 2001 the Court of Appeals denied the omnibus motion. The CA found no identity of parties and cause of action between Civil Cases Nos. Q-98-35444 and Q-00-39794 because the subject matters differed (CCT No. 3295 in the former and CCT No. 8876 in the latter) and because the reliefs sought were markedly different. The CA thus concluded there was no litis pendentia or forum shopping warranting dismissal.

Issues Raised Before the Supreme Court

In its Rule 45 petition, Rudecon Management Corporation challenged the CA resolutions denying its omnibus motion and the motion for reconsideration. The petitioner contended that the CA erred by focusing only on res judicata and litis pendentia while overlooking two alternative species of forum shopping: willful failure to report the pendency of another action involving the same issues under SC Adm. Cir. No. 04-94, and submission of a false certification of non-forum shopping. Petitioner argued the two RTC actions nonetheless raised the same antecedent issues—the validity and enforceability of the April 18, 1997 deed of exchange—thus triggering the duty to report and to disclose, and justifying dismissal and contempt sanctions.

Respondent's Procedural Objection and Petitioner's Reply

SISENANDO S. SINGSON objected that the petition before the Supreme Court under Rule 45 was procedurally improper because the CA resolutions were interlocutory and therefore not appealable under Section 1, Rule 45. He also argued that the Court could not treat the petition as one under Rule 65 because there was no showing of grave abuse of discretion by the CA. Rudecon Management Corporation insisted the CA resolutions were final and appealable and reiterated its forum-shopping allegations.

Jurisdictional Determination by the Supreme Court

The Court held that the CA resolution denying the omnibus motion was interlocutory. The Court explained that an interlocutory order decides some point but does not finally dispose of the case and cited precedent delineating final orders from interlocutory ones, including Investments, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 147 SCRA 334 (1987), and Sitchon v. Sheriff of Occidental Negros, 80 Phil. 397 (1948). Because Section 1, Rule 45 permits appeal only from final CA or Sandiganbayan judgments, orders, or resolutions, the proper remedy against an interlocutory CA resolution is not Rule 45 but, if at all, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 alleging grave abuse of discretion. The petitioner, however, had pursued Rule 45. The Court therefore found the mode of appeal improper.

Merits Analysis of Forum Shopping Claim

Even addressing the merits, the Court rejected petitioner’s forum-shopping claims. It reviewed the historical development of the rule against forum shopping and the statutory embodiment in Section 5, Rule 7, Revised Rules of Court, and in SC Adm. Cir. No. 04-94. The Court confirmed that dismissal and contempt are appropriate when a plaintiff institutes the same or similar action without disclosure. But the Court emphasized that the “same or similar” action contemplated by the rule requires substantial identity of parties, causes of action, issues, and reliefs so that one judgment would operate as res judicata upon the other. The Court relied on prior decisions, including Ayala Land, Inc. v. Valisno, 324 SCRA 522 (2000), and First Philippine International Bank v. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 259 (1996), to state the requisites of litis pendentia: identity of parties, identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, and such concurrence that any judgment in one case would be res judicata in the other.

Application to the Present Case

Applying those principles, the Court found no forum shopping. The two suits concerned different condominium units and different principal issues. Civil Case No. Q-00-39794 centered on Room 302 (CCT No. 8876) and alleged illegality of extrajudicial foreclosure and sheriff’s sale, whereas Civil Case No. Q-98-35444 concerned Room 404 (CCT No. 3295) and sought reconveyance and execution of a deed of sale. Although the deed of exchange appeared in pleadings in both actions, that common documentary reference alone did not render the suits identical or similar for purposes of the certification rule. Consequently, SISENANDO S. SINGSON’s affidavits stating, to the best of his knowledge, that

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 150798)

Parties and Posture

Rudecon Management Corporation was the petitioner before the Supreme Court seeking review under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Sisenando S. Singson was the respondent who instituted the underlying actions for reconveyance, damages, and annulment of a sheriff's sale.
The petition sought reversal of two Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 64281 that denied petitioner's omnibus motion to dismiss and denied its motion for reconsideration.
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals.

Key Facts

Pablo and Ma. Theresa P. Tolentino were the owners of Condominium Unit Room 302 covered by CCT No. 8876.
Rudecon Management Corporation executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in 1993 in favor of the Tolentinos covering Room 404 under CCT No. 3295 for P600,000.00.
Sisenando S. Singson owned two condominium units in Tempus Place II, Unit A and Unit B, covered by CCT Nos. 5013 and 5014 respectively.
On April 18, 1997, the Tolentinos and Singson executed a Deed of Exchange whereby Units A and B were conveyed to the Tolentinos in exchange for Rooms 302 and 404.
Rudecon Management Corporation filed an unlawful detainer case against Ramon Veluz concerning Room 404, which Veluz leased from Singson.
On September 3, 1998, Singson filed Civil Case No. Q-98-35444 against Rudecon Management Corporation for reconveyance of Room 404 and for damages, appending the Deed of Absolute Sale and later filing an amended complaint alleging among others a mortgage to Allied Banking Corporation for not less than P2,000,000.00.
Singson later filed Civil Case No. Q-00-39794 against Allied Banking Corporation and the Sheriff's Office for annulment of the sheriff's sale of Room 302 and sought injunctive relief, filing the required Verification and Affidavit of Non-Forum Shopping.

Procedural History

Rudecon Management Corporation filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in Civil Case No. Q-98-35444 on multiple grounds including lack of cause of action and non-privity to the Deed of Exchange.
The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case by Order dated April 7, 1999, and later denied reconsideration while granting the presiding judge's inhibition.
Singson appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals as CA-G.R. CV No. 64281.
Rudecon Management Corporation filed an Omnibus Motion in the Court of Appeals seeking dismissal of the appeal for forum shopping and seeking citation for indirect contempt for alleged failure to comply with the non-forum-shopping undertakings.
The Court of Appeals issued a Resolution dated July 31, 2001 denying the Omnibus Motion on grounds of no identity of parties and causes and distinguishing the subject matters as CCT No. 3295 and CCT No. 8876.
Rudecon Management Corporation filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 in the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals' Resolutions.

Issues Presented

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the Omnibus Motion to dismiss on grounds of forum shopping.
Whether Singson and his counsel violated SC Adm. Cir. No. 04-94 and Section 5, Rule 7 of the Revised Rules of Court by failing to report the pendency of another action and by submitting a false certification of non-forum shopping.
Whether the alleged antecedent questions concerning the validity and enforceability of the Deed of Exchange created identity of issues sufficient to constitute forum shopping.
Whether the petition was properly brought under Rule 45 given the interlocutory character of the Court of Appeals' Resolutions.

Petitioner's Contentions

Rudecon Management Corporation contended that there were three species of forum shopping and