Posted by: Helene Grace on July 26, 2018
FACTS:
Lim filed a Complaint Affidavit before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Balanga, Bataan, against Valentin Garcia (Garcia) for Falsification and Perjury. It stated in the affidavit that Garcia lost his owners duplicate copy of TCT which he entrusted to his agent to sell the same. Subsequently, Garcia filed a separate affidavit before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor against petitioner Lim, Fernandez and Rueda for Falsification of Public Document and Use of Falsified Document. The said complaints were consolidated and issued a Joint Resolution. Garcia was criminally charged and dismissed the complaint he filed.
Garcia et al filed a complaint with Certification and Verification before RTC for Delivery of The Owners Duplicate Certificate of Title and Damages. Further, they also filed before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor a Petition for Suspension of Criminal Action Based Upon The Pendency of A Prejudicial Question. However, it was denied.
Subsequently, the petitioners filed before the RTC a Motion to Dismiss raising the following grounds: a) private respondents violated the rule against forum-shopping in that they failed to state in the Verification and Certification attached to the Complaint that there is an earlier case filed by petitioners against them not only involving the same issues but also the same set of facts; and b) the claim set forth in private respondents Complaint had been extinguished by the previous sale of the property to the petitioners. Public respondent Vianzon denied the Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Reconsideration.
ISSUE:
I. Whether or not public respondent Vianzon gravely abused his discretion when he denied the motion to dismiss.
II. Whether or not private respondents Garcia violated the rule against forum-shopping.
HELD:
There is no objection to a judge correcting or altogether altering his case disposition on a motion for reconsideration, it being the purpose of such recourse to provide the court an opportunity to cleanse itself of an error unwittingly committed, or, with like effect, to allow the aggrieved party the chance to convince the court that its ruling is erroneous.
Parenthetically, assuming that the two orders were erroneous, such error would merely be deemed as an error of judgment that cannot be remedied by certiorari. As long as the public respondent acted with jurisdiction, any error committed by him or it in the exercise thereof will amount to nothing more than an error of judgment which may be reviewed or corrected only by appeal. All errors committed in the exercise of such jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment. Certiorari under Rule 65 is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. Petitioners rights can be more appropriately addressed in an appeal.
Significantly, even if we accord merit to petitioners contention that public respondent denied their Motion to Dismiss perfunctorily, it does not follow that the motion to dismiss should have been granted or that the conclusion should be that public respondent had acted with grave abuse of discretion.
The Motion to Dismiss, as earlier noted, is predicated on two grounds, namely: breach of the forum-shopping rule and extinguishment of the cause of action by the previous sale of the property involved to them.
Forum-shopping exists when the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. 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 adjudicata in the other case.
On this issue, we hold that private respondents were not mandated to disclose the status of the criminal cases. This is so because, as asserted by private respondents, there is no identity of the causes of action, issues and reliefs prayed for in the criminal cases and the civil case.
FACTS:
Lim filed a Complaint Affidavit before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Balanga, Bataan, against Valentin Garcia (Garcia) for Falsification and Perjury. It stated in the affidavit that Garcia lost his owners duplicate copy of TCT which he entrusted to his agent to sell the same. Subsequently, Garcia filed a separate affidavit before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor against petitioner Lim, Fernandez and Rueda for Falsification of Public Document and Use of Falsified Document. The said complaints were consolidated and issued a Joint Resolution. Garcia was criminally charged and dismissed the complaint he filed.
Garcia et al filed a complaint with Certification and Verification before RTC for Delivery of The Owners Duplicate Certificate of Title and Damages. Further, they also filed before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor a Petition for Suspension of Criminal Action Based Upon The Pendency of A Prejudicial Question. However, it was denied.
Subsequently, the petitioners filed before the RTC a Motion to Dismiss raising the following grounds: a) private respondents violated the rule against forum-shopping in that they failed to state in the Verification and Certification attached to the Complaint that there is an earlier case filed by petitioners against them not only involving the same issues but also the same set of facts; and b) the claim set forth in private respondents Complaint had been extinguished by the previous sale of the property to the petitioners. Public respondent Vianzon denied the Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Reconsideration.
ISSUE:
I. Whether or not public respondent Vianzon gravely abused his discretion when he denied the motion to dismiss.
II. Whether or not private respondents Garcia violated the rule against forum-shopping.
HELD:
There is no objection to a judge correcting or altogether altering his case disposition on a motion for reconsideration, it being the purpose of such recourse to provide the court an opportunity to cleanse itself of an error unwittingly committed, or, with like effect, to allow the aggrieved party the chance to convince the court that its ruling is erroneous.
Parenthetically, assuming that the two orders were erroneous, such error would merely be deemed as an error of judgment that cannot be remedied by certiorari. As long as the public respondent acted with jurisdiction, any error committed by him or it in the exercise thereof will amount to nothing more than an error of judgment which may be reviewed or corrected only by appeal. All errors committed in the exercise of such jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment. Certiorari under Rule 65 is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. Petitioners rights can be more appropriately addressed in an appeal.
Significantly, even if we accord merit to petitioners contention that public respondent denied their Motion to Dismiss perfunctorily, it does not follow that the motion to dismiss should have been granted or that the conclusion should be that public respondent had acted with grave abuse of discretion.
The Motion to Dismiss, as earlier noted, is predicated on two grounds, namely: breach of the forum-shopping rule and extinguishment of the cause of action by the previous sale of the property involved to them.
Forum-shopping exists when the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. 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 adjudicata in the other case.
On this issue, we hold that private respondents were not mandated to disclose the status of the criminal cases. This is so because, as asserted by private respondents, there is no identity of the causes of action, issues and reliefs prayed for in the criminal cases and the civil case.
