Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

ELSA D. MEDADO, vs. with the CA.

They sought, among other reliefs,


HEIRS OF THE LATE ANTONIO the dismissal of the complaint for injunction for
CONSING, as represented by DR. violation of the rules on litis pendentia and
SOLEDAD CONSING, forum shopping. On the matter of the absence
of a motion for reconsideration of the trial
court's order before resorting to a petition
for certiorari, the heirs explained that the
implementation of the questioned writs
rendered their motion for reconsideration moot
and academic. The heirs argued that their case
FACTS: (Spouses Medado) and Estate of was within the exceptions to the general rule
Consing executed Deeds of Sale with that a petition under Rule 65 will not lie unless
Assumption of Mortgage of the a motion for reconsideration is first filed.
property identified as Hacienda.
CA NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE the ruling of RTC.
As part of the deal, Spouses Medado undertook
to assume the estate's loan with (PNB). The CA ruled that the RTC gravely abused its
discretion in taking cognizance of Civil Case
Subsequent to the sale, however, the Estate of for injunction during the pendency of Civil
Consing offered the subject lots to the Case for rescission and damages as this
government. Estate of Consing also instituted violates the rule against forum shopping.
with the RTC, an action for rescission and
ISSUES:
damages against Spouses Medado due to the Was the requirement for verification and certification
alleged failure of the spouses to meet the against forum shopping complied with by the heris of
conditions in their agreement. consing when the same is solely signed by Soledad-
administratix?
In the meantime while the case for
rescission was pending, Land Bank issued in Was the rule on forum shopping violated by
favor of the Estate of Consing a certificate of (Sps Medado) when they filed the complaint
deposit of cash as compensation for the lots. for injunction during the pendency of the action
for rescission and damages ( filed by the
Spouses Medado feared that LBP would release estate of Consing).
the full proceeds thereof to the Estate of
Consing, they institute an action for injunction HELD:
to restrain LBP from releasing the remaining The requirements for verification
amount of the proceeds of the lots to Estate of and certification against forum shopping in
Consing, and restraining the Estate of Consing the CA petition were substantially complied
from receiving these proceeds with, following settled jurisprudence.

RTC granter the injunction (Medado) and the It was signed on behalf of her co-petitioners by
Writ of Preliminary Injunction was issued. The writ was virtue of a Special Power of Attorney:
implemented 1 day before the hearing for the motion To protect, sue,
for reconsideration filed by Heirs of Consing prosecute, defend and
adopt whatever action
Feeling aggrieved, the heirs of the late necessary and proper
relative and with respect
Antonio Consing (Consing) questioned the
to our right, interest and
RTC's order via a petition for certiorari filed participation over said
properties any further delay would prejudice the interests of the
Government or of the petitioner,
Purpose of Verification:
verification requirement is simply intended to 3. where, under the circumstances, a motion for
secure an assurance that the allegations in the reconsideration would be useless;
pleading are true and correct, and not the
4. where the petitioner was deprived of due process and
product of the imagination or a matter of there is extreme urgency of relief
speculation, and that the pleading is filed in
good faith. As correctly held by the CA, a motion
The general rule is that the for reconsideration had become useless----
certificate of non-forum shopping must
naissue na ang writ of preliminary
be signed by all the plaintiffs in a case
and the signature of only one of them is injunction and court had decided to
insufficient. However, The rule of implement the writs
substantial compliance may be availed just a day before the scheduled hearing on said
of with respect to the contents of the motion.
certification. Thus, under justifiable
circumstances, the Court has relaxed the
Forum-shopping exists when the elements
rule requiring the submission of such
certification considering that although it of litis pendentia concur. PRP-C
is obligatory, it is not jurisdictional.
(1) identity of parties, or at least such parties as
Settled doctrine: represent the same interests in both actions,
Verification and certification agasint (2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed
forum shopping Substantially complied
for, the relief being founded on the same facts,
with because all the petitioners share a
common interest and invoke a common and
cause of action or defense. (3) the identity of the two proceeding
particulars is such that any judgment rendered
verification of a pleading is a formal, not a in the other action will, regardless of which
jurisdictional, requirement intended to secure party is successful, amount to res judicata in
the assurance that the matters alleged in a the action under consideration;
pleading are true and correct.
said requisites are also constitutive of the
There are recognized exceptions permitting requisites for auter action pendant or lis
resort to a special civil action pendens.[18] Applying the foregoing, there was
of certiorari even without first filing a motion clearly a violation of the rule against forum
for reconsideration. shopping

The general rule is that a motion for All elements of litis pendentia are present
reconsideration is a condition sine qua non before a with the filing of the two cases.
petition for certiorari may lie, its purpose being to grant
an opportunity for the court a quo to correct any error
attributed to it by re-examination of the legal and identity of parties ==== both involving the
factual circumstances of the case. estate and heirs of the late Consing on one
hand, and Spouses Medado on the
exceptions : other. Primary litigants in the two action, and
their interests, are the same.
1. order is a patent nullity because the court a quo had
no jurisdiction;
identity of rights==== reliefs being founded on
2.urgent necessity for the resolution of the question, and the same set of facts. In both cases, the parties
claim their supposed right as owners of the
subject properties.--- with Spouses Medado as
buyers and the heirs as sellers,

identity of the two cases ====is such as would


render the decision in the rescission case res
judicata in the injunction case, and vice versa.-
(pag narescind- eh di yung heirs and owner,
therefore the injunction case of sps Medado
would have no basis. On the other hand if the
injunction case prevails, its as if saying that
Sps Medado are the owners, thus there is no
cause of action to rescind the deed of sale. )

The test of identity of


causes of action lies not
in the form of an action
but on whether the same
evidence would support
and establish the former
and the present causes of
action.

Factors to determine which case should be


dismissed,

(1) the date of filing, with preference


generally given to the first action filed to
be retained;
(2) whether the action sought to be
dismissed was filed merely
to preempt the latter action or to
anticipate its filing and lay the basis
for its dismissal; and
(3) whether the action is the
appropriate vehicle for litigating
the issues between the parties

Ratio of res judicata requires that stability be


accorded to judgments. Controversies once
decided on the merits shall remain in repose
for there should be an end to litigation which,
without the doctrine, would be endless.