Counter-Arguments

Litis Pendentia and Forum-Shopping

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.1
The essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same
parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, to
secure a favorable judgment.2
This consequence will defeat the public policy reasons behind litis pendentia
which, like the rule on forum shopping, aim to prevent the unnecessary
burdening of our courts and undue taxing of the manpower and financial
resources of the Judiciary; to avoid the situation where co-equal courts issue
conflicting decisions over the same cause; and to preclude one party from
harassing the other party through the filing of an unnecessary or vexatious suit.3
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.4
Elements of Litis Pendentia
Litis pendentia requires the concurrence of the following elements:
1 Benavidez vs. Salvador, G.R. No. 173331 December 11, 2013
2 Lim vs. Co Ping, G.R. No. 175256

August 23, 2012

3 Ibid. 1
4 Spouses Mariano P. Marasigan and Josefina Leal vs. Chevron Phil., Inc., ACCRA
Investments, Corp., and ACCRA G.R. No. 184015, February 8, 2012

(1) Identity of parties, or at least their representation of the same interests in

both actions;
(2) Identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the relief 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 case5
To determine whether there is identity of the rights asserted and reliefs prayed
for, grounded on the same facts and bases, the following tests may be utilized:
(1) whether the same evidence would support and sustain both the first and
the second causes of action, also known as the "same evidence" test; or (2)
whether the defenses in one case may be used to substantiate the complaint
in the other. Also fundamental is the test of determining whether the cause of
action in the second case existed at the time of the filing of the first case.
MCWD vs. Mactan Rock Industries G.R. No. 172438, July 4, 2012, citing
Cabreza, Jr. v. Cabreza, G.R. No. 181962, January 16, 2012 and Umale v.
Canoga Park Development Corporation, G.R. No. 167246, July 20, 2011, 654
SCRA 155, 162.
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.6
5 Spouses Mariano P. Marasigan and Josefina Leal vs. Chevron Phil., Inc., ACCRA
Investments, Corp., and ACCRA G.R. No. 184015, February 8, 2012, Roberto S.
Benedicto v. Manuel Lacson, G.R. No. 141508, May 5, 2010, 620 SCRA 82, 97-98

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that if a case is such that its
determination requires the expertise, specialized training and knowledge of the
proper administrative bodies, relief must first be obtained in an administrative
proceeding before a remedy is supplied by the courts even if the matter may
well be within their proper jurisdiction. It applies where a claim is originally
cognizable in the courts, and comes into play whenever enforcement of the
claim REQUIRES THE RESOLUTION OF ISSUES which, under a
regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an
administrative agency. In such a case, the court in which the claim is sought to
be enforced may suspend the judicial process pending referral of such issues to
the administrative body for its view or, if the parties would not be unfairly
disadvantaged, dismiss the case without prejudice. Province of Aklan vs. Jody
King Construction, G.R. No. 197592 & 20262 November 27, 2013, SAMELCO
vs. Seludo, G.R. No. 173840, April 25, 2012.

6 Spouses Mariano P. Marasigan and Josefina Leal vs. Chevron Phil., Inc., ACCRA
Investments, Corp., and ACCRA G.R. No. 184015, February 8, 2012