View full case

RAMON CHING v. JOSEPH CHENG

FACTS:

Ramon Ching and Po Wing Properties filed a petition for review on certiorari assailing the dismissal of Civil Case No. 02-103319 without prejudice. The case involved a family feud where multiple individuals claimed to be the heirs of Antonio Ching. Ramon Ching alleged that he was the only child of Antonio Ching with his common-law wife, while Joseph Cheng and Jaime Cheng claimed to be Antonio Ching's illegitimate children with his housemaid. Lucina Santos, Antonio Ching's alleged common-law wife, claimed that when Antonio Ching fell ill, he entrusted her with the distribution of his estate, but Ramon Ching allegedly demanded the return of the property titles and business documents. Antonio Ching was allegedly murdered, and Ramon Ching induced Mercedes Igne and her children to sign an agreement and waiver to Antonio Ching's estate. Ramon Ching was considered the primary suspect, and a complaint for declaration of nullity of titles was filed against him.

In the first case, Ramon Ching and Po Wing Properties filed a complaint against the Chengs and Lucina Santos, but it was dismissed without prejudice. While their motion for reconsideration was pending, the Chengs and Lucina Santos filed a new complaint against Ramon Ching and Po Wing Properties (the third case). Ramon Ching and Po Wing Properties filed a motion to dismiss the third case, arguing that it should be barred under the "two-dismissal rule" and res judicata. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and held that the dismissal of the second case was without prejudice. Ramon Ching and Po Wing Properties filed a petition for certiorari (the first certiorari case) with the Court of Appeals, which was later dismissed. They then filed a second petition for certiorari and prohibition (the second certiorari case) with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration in the third case. Ramon Ching and Po Wing Properties filed a petition for review under Rule 45, arguing that the dismissal of the second case should be with prejudice and that the third case should be dismissed on the ground of res judicata. Respondents argued that the dismissal was without prejudice and that the petitions should be dismissed on the ground of forum shopping and litis pendencia. The case was submitted for decision and the issues raised were whether the dismissal of the second case operated as a bar to the filing of the third case under the "two-dismissal rule," and whether there was forum shopping.

In another case, Consolidated Logging and Lumber Mills filed a complaint against Insular Veneer, Inc. in a trial court in Isabela to recover some logs. They also filed an ex parte motion for a restraining order, which the trial court granted and treated as a writ of preliminary injunction. When Consolidated Logging recovered the logs, they filed a notice of dismissal under Rule 17, Section 1 of the 1964 Rules of Civil Procedure. However, while the action on the notice for dismissal was pending, Consolidated Logging filed the same complaint against Insular Veneer in a trial court in Manila without mentioning the previous action in Isabela. The Manila court eventually dismissed the complaint due to the non-appearance of Consolidated Logging's counsel during pre-trial. Consolidated Logging then returned to the Isabela court to revive the same complaint, which the court apparently treated as a withdrawal of the notice of dismissal. Insular Veneer filed a motion to dismiss in the Isabela court, arguing that the dismissal by the Manila court constituted res judicata over the case. The Isabela court denied the motion to dismiss, leading to a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the higher court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the filing of the amended complaint in the Isabela court was barred by the prior dismissal of the Manila court.

  2. Whether the dismissal of the second case was with prejudice or without prejudice.

  3. Whether the dismissal of the first case was with prejudice or without prejudice.

  4. Whether the re-filing of the claim in the third case constitutes forum shopping.

  5. Whether filing the third case while the motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of the second case was still pending constitutes forum shopping.

  6. Whether or not the rule on forum shopping applies in this case.

  7. Whether or not the third case filed by the respondents should be dismissed.

RULING:

  1. The filing of the amended complaint in the Isabela court was not barred by the prior dismissal of the Manila court. When a pleading is amended, the original pleading is deemed abandoned and the case stands for trial on the amended pleading only. Therefore, the prior dismissal order in the Manila case could not be interposed in the Isabela court to support the defense of res judicata.

  2. The dismissal of the second case was without prejudice in view of the "two-dismissal rule." Under Section 1 of Rule 17, dismissals are generally without prejudice except when it is the second time that the plaintiff caused the dismissal. In this case, since it was the first time that the second case was dismissed, the plaintiff is not barred from seeking relief on the same claim in the future.

  3. The dismissal of the first case was without prejudice. The trial court's instruction to file the appropriate pleading after the dismissal of the first case does not reverse the dismissal. The dismissal was done at the instance of the defendant on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The dismissal of the second case, requested by the plaintiff before the service of any responsive pleadings, is a matter of right and is considered the first dismissal at the plaintiff's instance.

  4. The re-filing of the claim in the third case constitutes forum shopping. While the dismissal of the second case was without prejudice, respondents' act of filing the third case while the motion for reconsideration was still pending constitutes forum shopping.

  5. Yes, filing the third case while the motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of the second case was still pending constitutes forum shopping. The dismissal of the second case was not yet final and could still be overturned upon reconsideration or appeal. The respondents could have waited for the final disposition of the second case before filing the third case. The hasty filing of the third case violated the rules on litis pendentia and created the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by different courts on the same issues. Any judgment by the court on the propriety of the dismissal of the second case would inevitably affect the disposition of the third case. The filing of the third case while the motion for reconsideration was pending amounts to forum shopping.

  6. The rule on forum shopping does not strictly apply in this case because the original case was dismissed upon request of the plaintiffs for valid procedural reasons.

  7. The third case filed by the respondents should not be dismissed because it contains a better cause of action and is being prosecuted by a counsel the respondents are more comfortable with.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The filing of an amended complaint abandons the original pleading, and the case stands for trial on the amended pleading only.

  • Dismissals under Section 1 of Rule 17 are generally without prejudice, except when it is the second time that the plaintiff caused the dismissal.

  • Dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute is considered an adjudication on the merits and with prejudice to the filing of another action, unless otherwise provided in the order of dismissal.

  • The dismissal of a case may be with or without prejudice depending on the circumstances surrounding each dismissal.

  • The trial court has no discretion or option to deny a motion to dismiss by the plaintiff under Rule 17, Section 1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure since the dismissal is guaranteed as a matter of right to the plaintiffs, regardless of the ground cited in the motion.

  • The re-filing of a claim after dismissal may be subject to the rule against forum shopping if it is done while a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal is still pending.

  • Forum shopping is the institution of two or more actions or proceedings involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. Forum shopping trifles with the courts, abuses their processes, degrades the administration of justice, and congests court dockets. Willful and deliberate violation of the rule against forum shopping is a ground for summary dismissal of the case.

  • The most important factor in determining forum shopping is whether there is identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought in the two (or more) cases pending.

  • Litis pendentia, as a ground for the dismissal of a civil action, refers to the situation wherein another action is pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, rendering the second action unnecessary and vexatious. The requisites of litis pendentia are: (a) the identity of parties, (b) the identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, and (c) the identity of the two cases such that judgment in one would amount to res judicata in the other.

  • Once there is a finding of forum shopping, the penalty is summary dismissal not only of the petition pending before the court but also of the other case that is pending in a lower court, as twin dismissal is a punitive measure to those who trifle with the orderly administration of justice.

  • Forum shopping is prohibited by the courts as it trifle with the orderly administration of justice.

  • The rule on forum shopping penalizes litigants by dismissing all pending actions on the same claim filed in any court.

  • The dismissal of a case for valid procedural reasons does not strictly apply the rule on forum shopping.

  • Courts must always endeavor to resolve cases on their merits and avoid a strict and rigid application of rules that would frustrate substantial justice.

  • Rules of procedure should be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of ensuring the just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.