Young v. Keng Seng 091GR No. 143464, 5 March 2003, Panganiban, J.Digested by Anna • Law 125 – Civil Procedure

Petitioners: Emilio Young and Tita YoungRespondents: John Keng SengNature of the case: Petition for certiorari under Rule 45, seeking to set aside the CA’s denial of

the petitioner’s MR.

Emilio Young challenges the validity of a complaint filed twice by John Keng Seng for violating the rule on forum shopping. The Court held that Young is barred from raising the ground on forum shopping when it was not alleged in the original motion to dismiss.

FACTS John Keng Seng filed a complaint for accounting of general agency, injunction, turning over

of properties, and damages, with the RTC Branch 53, Bacolod City against the herein petitioners Emilio and Tita Young.

The Youngs filed a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action. RTC Bacolod dismissed the case.

3 months after, Keng Seng filed another complaint against Emilio Young for accounting and damages with the RTC Branch 44, Bacolod City.

Young again filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the complainant failed to state a good, valid and/or worthwhile cause of action as against the defendant, which the court denied. Young filed an MR, adding the following ground – that Keng Seng had fatally failed to comply with the rule against forum shopping, as he had in fact deliberately submitted a false certification under oath as contained in the complaint in the present suit.

The MR was granted and the case was dismissed. Keng Seng filed an MR, but the presiding judge inhibited himself from hearing the case, so it was re-raffled to branch 54.

Presiding Judge Magallanes of RTC Branch 54 issued an order finding that Keng Seng had not violated the rule on forum shopping. Young filed an MR but was denied.

CA also ruled that Keng Seng did not violate the rule on forum shopping – the first case was dismissed in March 1997, while the second case was filed only in June 1997.

ISSUES & HOLDING WON petitioner can still raise the alleged violation of the rule on nonforum shopping, even if

he failed to cite it as a ground in his Motion to Dismiss the Second Case. NO, a motion attacking a pleading, order, judgment, or proceeding shall include all objections then available, and all objections not so included shall be deemed

WON he CA erred in holding that respondent had not violated the rule on forum shopping. NO.

RATIOWAIVER

Section 1 of Rule 9 of the Rules of Court provides that defenses and objections not pleaded in a motion to dismiss or in an answer are deemed waived.

However, courts shall nonetheless dismiss the claim when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that (1) the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, (2) there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, (3) the action is barred by prior judgment, or 4) the statute of limitations has been crossed.

Section 8 of Rule 15: Subject to the provisions of Section 1 of Rule 9, a motion attacking a pleading, order, judgment, or proceeding shall include all objections then available, and all objections not so included shall be deemed waived.

Applied to the case: petitioner is barred from raising the ground of forum shopping in the Court of Appeals and SC for failure to invoke such ground at the first opportunity.

FORUM SHOPPING Forum shopping is the institution of two or more suits in different courts, either

simultaneously or successively, in order to ask the courts to rule on the same or related causes and/or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs.

Section 5, Rule 7 was included in the ROC to stamp out this abominable practice of trifling with the administration of justice.

First Philippine International Bank v. CA: where a litigant sues the same party against whom another action or actions for the alleged violation of the same right and the enforcement of the same relief is/are still pending, the defense of litis pendentia in one case is a bar to the others.

Test for determining forum shopping: whether in the two (or more) cases pending, there is identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought.

Applied to the case: litis pendentia is not present because the first case was already dismissed before the institution of the second case. As to the second element, since the dismissal in the first case is based on the theory that the complaint did not state a cause of action, it does not bar the plaintiff from refiling the same action or claim with the proper allegations showing a valid cause of action. No res judicata would arise.

The SC noted, however, that Keng Seng’s certification violates the rule on non-forum shopping because it did not disclose the filing of the first case. Nonetheless, it held that substantial justice requires the resolution of the present controversy on its merits.

DISPOSITIVEPetition DENIED.

TC directed to hear the controversy and decide on the merits.