"x x x.
Litis pendentia is a Latin term, which literally means "a pending suit" and is variously referred to in some decisions as lis pendens and auter action pendant. As a ground for the dismissal of a civil action, it refers to the situation where two actions are pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, so that one of them becomes unnecessary and vexatious. It is based on the policy against multiplicity of suits.[6]
Litis pendentia requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) identity of parties, or at least such parties as those representing the same interests in both actions; (2) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts; and (3) identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases, such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other case.
What is pivotal in determining whether forum shopping exists or not is the vexation caused to the courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related cases and/or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different courts and/or administrative agencies upon the same issues.[7]
In the case at bench, all the requisites of litis pendentia are present. The first element, identity of parties, or at least representing the same interest in both actions, exists. The Court agrees with the ruling of the CA that Chevron and Spouses Marasigan are the same parties in the RTC-Makati Case and the RTC-Gumaca Case. Unquestionably, the plaintiff and the defendants in the RTC-Makati Case are Chevron and Spouses Marasigan as well as Mareal Co., Inc., respectively. On the other hand, the plaintiffs in the RTC-Gumaca Case are the Spouses Marasigan and the defendants therein are Chevron, ACCRAIN and ACCRALAW. The absence of ACCRAIN and ACCRALAW as party plaintiffs in the RTC-Makati case and their additional presence as party defendants in the RTC-Gumaca case would not unfavorably affect the respondents because the rule does not require absolute identity of parties. A substantial identity of parties is enough to qualify under the first requisite. What is important here is that the principal parties – Chevron and Spouses Marasigan – are the same in both cases. The Court held:
In this case, the first requisite, identity of parties or at least such as represent the same interest in both actions, is present. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the fact that there is no absolute identity of parties in both cases will not preclude the application of the rule of litis pendentia, since only substantial and not absolute identity of parties is required for litis pendentia to lie.[8] [Emphasis supplied]
The second element, identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts, likewise subsists here. It cannot be denied that the complaint filed in the RTC-Makati was for a Sum of Money while that filed in the RTC-Gumaca was for Declaration of Nullity and/or Annulment of Foreclosure with Damages. Although both cases differ in form or nature, the same facts would be alleged and the same evidence would be presented considering that the resolution of both cases would be based on the validity and enforceability of the same credit lines, real estate mortgages and foreclosure proceedings. Indeed, the true test in determining the identity of causes of action lies not in the form or nature of the actions but rather in the evidence that would be presented.
The test to determine identity of causes of action is to ascertain whether the same evidence necessary to sustain the second cause of action is sufficient to authorize a recovery in the first, even if the forms or the nature of the two (2) actions are different from each other. If the same facts or evidence would sustain both, the two (2) actions are considered the same within the rule that the judgment in the former is a bar to the subsequent action; otherwise, it is not. This method has been considered the most accurate test as to whether a former judgment is a bar in subsequent proceedings between the same parties. It has even been designated as infallible.[9]
In this regard, the CA aptly explained this matter, as follows:
As to subject matter, the rights asserted by both parties are based on the same credit lines and real estate mortgages. In the Makati RTC case, appellant Chevron has to prove that deliveries of Chevron products were made pursuant to the credit lines and the real estate mortgages securing the same; and that the subsequent foreclosure are valid but there is still a deficiency after deducting the proceeds of the foreclosure sale from appellees’ obligation. In the instant case, appellees seek to evade or diminish their liability under the credit lines and real estate mortgages by either having the foreclosure sale of the Mulanay property annulled or by collecting the alleged discrepancy between the market value of the property and the bid price offered by ACCRAIN. Thus, although the instant case pertains only to the Mulanay property, the resolution of both cases would require a determination of the validity and enforceability of the deliveries made by Chevron of the real estate mortgages and foreclosure proceedings. In both cases, the same evidence would be presented and the same subject matter would be litigated. The difference in the form of actions is of no moment as 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.
Finally, the presence of the third element, that the identity of the two cases should be such that the judgment that may be rendered in one would, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the other, cannot be disputed either.
Spouses Marasigan do not deny the fact that the affirmative defense that they raised in the RTC-Makati case was the illegality of the foreclosure sale of the Mulanay property.[10] They raised the same issue in the RTC-Gumaca case.[11] As correctly ruled by the CA, the judgment in the RTC-Makati with regard to the validity of the foreclosure sale of the Mulanay property will constitute res judicata in the case, and vice versa. The Court also agrees with its ruling that the RTC-Makati case should be the priority case because it was filed earlier and, therefore, the appropriate vehicle for litigating all issues in this case.
The Court having ruled that the CA properly dismissed the petitioners’ complaint due to the presence of litis pendentia and the violation of the rule on forum shopping, there is no need to rule further on the other issues raised by the petitioners and the respondents in this case.
x x x."
