G.R. NO. 159786 - EDGARDO V. GUEVARA, VS. BPI SECURITIES CORPORATION.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby denied and the assailed Order of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 135, is hereby affirmed with the modification that the claim for damages due to the suit filed against Guevara in the United States is DISMISSED due to the existence of another action pending between the same parties involving the same cause of action in Civil Case No. 92-1445. Costs against petitioner. [37] Aggrieved by the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 53379, Guevara filed a partial motion for reconsideration and in a Resolution, [38] issued on 26 August 2003, the Court of Appeals denied his Motion. Guevara, thus, filed before this Court the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari [39] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, based on the following assignment of errors: I. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN REFUSING TO DISMISS THE PETITION CONSIDERING THAT THE ISSUE RAISED THEREIN WAS ALREADY PASSED UPON IN CA-G.R. NO. 40303 II. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT CIVIL CASE NO. 624 (SIC) SHOULD BE DISMISSED BASED ON THE GROUND OF LITIS PENDENTIA. On one hand, petitioner Guevara argues that the Court of Appeals should have dismissed the Petition of BPI Securities Corp. in CA-G.R. SP No. 53379 as the issue of litis pendentia and forum shopping was already passed upon by the same court in CA-G.R. SP No. 40303. In its Decision in the latter case, the Court of Appeals made the following pronouncements: 8. And, finally, Civil Case 95-624 is not similar to Civil Case 16563, and forum-shopping does not exist, in line with International Container Terminal Services, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 249 SCRA 389, holding that forum-shopping exists when both actions involve the same parties, the same subject matter, the same essential facts and circumstances, and the same identical issues. Civil Case 16563 and Civil Case 95-264 do not have the same parties as Edgardo V. Guevara is not a party in Civil Case 16563 and that the two cases do not have the same facts nor do they raise the same identical causes of action. [40] According to Guevara, since the Court of Appeals had ruled before on the issue of litis pendentia and forum shopping in a decision that had become final and executory, the judgment therein constitutes the law of the case between the parties. Also, the cause of action in Civil Case No. 95-624 is not the same as that in Civil Case No. 92-1445 and therefore, there can be no litis pendentia. Civil Case No. 95-624 involves claims for actual, moral and exemplary damages arising out of the malicious inclusion by BPI Securities Corp. of Guevara in a counter-complaint filed in the U.S. District Court; while Civil Case No. 92-1445 involves the enforcement of a Decision of the U.S. District Court awarding in his favor penalty in accordance with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Procedure. The former is based on the Civil Code of the Philippines, while the latter one is based on a U.S. decision. The causes of action of