602 Phil. 477
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Case No. | Regional Trial Court (RTC) |
Civil Case No. 95-127 | Branch 57, Lucena |
Civil Case No. 22493 | Branch 28, Iloilo |
Civil Case No. 545-M-95 | Branch 84, Batangas City |
Civil Case No. U-6026 | Branch 48, Urdaneta, Pangasinan |
Civil Case No. 4992 | Branch 66, La Union |
Civil Case No. 3036 | Branch 13, Cotabato |
Civil Case No. Q-95-24830 | Branch 91, Quezon City |
Civil Case No. 2506-MN | Branch 72, Malabon, Metro Manila |
Civil Case No. 95-230 | Branch 274, Parañaque |
Civil Case No. 95-170-MK | Branch 272, Marikina |
Civil Case No. 95-75212 | Branch 45, Manila |
Civil Case No. 95-75213 | Branch 46, Manila |
Civil Case No. 95-75214 | Branch 47, Manila |
Civil Case No. 23,821-95 | Branch 33 Davao City |
Civil Case No. 96-0036 | Branch 255, Las Piñas |
Civil Case No. 2176-AF | Branch 86, Cabanatuan City |
Upon [Banco Filipino's] own admission, x x x its instant petition is a plea for the annulment of a lower court order granting a motion to dismiss. At the same time, [Banco Filipino] admits to have received the said order "on 17 January 1997," or, to be precise, twenty one (21) days prior to the institution of its instant petition with this Court (assuming the same to have been filed on its given date, Febraury 2, 1997).And petitioners brought to the attention of the Court of Appeals the pendency of G.R. No. 12711 before this Court, questioning the denial of their motion to dismiss in Civil Case No. 545-M-95 (the Batangas case), contending as follows:
On the foregoing considerations alone, therefore, the mandatory, legal duty of this Court is to deny, not to grant, due course to this special civil action. x x x
x x x x
In the case on hand, [Banco Filipino] itself alleges that it received a copy of the Order dismissing its complaint on 23 August 1996,. Against this Order, it then filed on 7 September 1996 (the last day for perfecting an appeal therefrom) a motion for reconsideration which herein Respondent Judge denied on 13 January 1997. Petitioner received a copy of this Order denying its above motion 17 January 1997, Petitioner thus had only one or the following day, 18 July 1997, to file its mandatory "notice of appeal". Thereafter, beyond 18 January 1997, the said Order lapsed into finality. It was no longer legally appeallable.[9] (Underscoring in the original)
[Banco Filipino] tenders one and only one issue in its instant petition, to wit: Did or did not Respondent Judge gravely abuse his discretion when he dismissed its complaint with him under Civil Case No. 2176-AF as violative of the Supreme Court's Administrative Circular on "forum shopping?"The Court of Appeals denied the Motion to Recall by Resolution of June 17, 1997, declaring that its February 14, 1997 Resolution stands but the Answer should be submitted within ten days from notice. Hence, the first above-captioned petition for certiorari, and prohibition (G.R. No. 130088)[12] raising the following arguments:
The instant petition was filed with this Court on 07 February 1997. On this date, exactly the same issue above raised was already before the Supreme Court for ruling and/or judicial determination. Two weeks earlier, on 20 July 1997 to be exact, herein Private Respondents filed with the said Tribunal under G.R. No. 12711 a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition that precisely and specifically prayed for the condemnation of [Banco Filipino's] complaint with the Cabanatuan RTC, Branch 86, under Civil Case No. 2176-AF, (the very complaint involved in this petition, together with fifteen (15) other like suits, as "forum shopping." x x x[10]
x x x x
[Banco Filipino] received its service copy of the above petition on 25 January 1997. On 7 February 1997 when it filed with this Court the instant petition, said Petitioner was thus already on full and official notice of the said petition with the Supreme Court under G.R. No. 127611. Entirely apart then from the undeniable fact that the instant petition thus likewise breaches the Supreme Court's circular against "forum shopping", there is the matter of [Banco Filipino's] criminal perjury in this case of attesting under oath that "no other action or proceeding is pending in any other court, tribunal or agency" x x x "involving the same issues" as those tendered in the instant petition.[11]
Respondent Court issued its two assailed Resolutions in knowing disregard of the prior jurisdiction much earlier assumed by this Court over the matters subject of its said Resolutions.[13]In its Comment,[17] Banco Filipino argued that certiorari is not the appropriate remedy.[18]
x x x x
In undisguised disdain and defiance of This Court's doctrinal instructions, Respondent Court substituted certiorari for a lost appeal.[14]
x x x x
Respondent Court's determination that [Banco Filipino's] subject petition was "sufficient [in form] and substance" was in fact a mere cover of its whimsical prejudgment of the said petition as meritorious.[15]
x x x x
Respondent Court issued its two Resolutions subject of this petition knowing that it was effectively undoing, or at least putting to ridicule and disrepute an earlier judgment of its co-equal Division of the Court of Appeals.[16]
RESPONDENT COURT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ISSUING THE ASSAILED ORDERS AS THEY ARE FOUNDED ON RESPONDENT COURT'S AVOIDANCE OR EVASION OF A MANDATORY OBLIGATION FRESHLY LEGISLATED BY NO LESS THAN THIS COURT, AND ARE THEREFORE, VOID[;]G.R. No. 166608
RESPONDENT COURT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO A LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN DENYING PETITIONERS' MOTION ON THE GROUND THAT INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS ATTAIN FINALITY.[24]
G.R. Nos. 155201 and 155171A.
x x x FAILED TO APPLY THE CATEGORICAL AND BINDING PRONOUNCEMENT BY THIS HONORABLE COURT IN G.R. No. 137533, ARTICULATED IN ITS EN BANC DECISION DATED 22 NOVEMBER 2002, TO THE CASE AT BENCH, IN WANTON DISREGARD OF THE SECOND ASPECT OF RES JUDICATA, I.E., CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGMENT.B.
x x x VIOLATED THE PRINCIPLE OF ADHERENCE TO JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS WHEN IT FAILED TO APPLY TO THE CASE AT BENCH THE DEFINITIVE AND BINDING DECISION BY NO LESS THAN THIS HONORABLE COURT, SITTING EN BANC, IN G.R. NO. 137533.C.
x x x WANTONLY DISREGARDED THE PROSCRIPTION AGAINST FORUM-SHOPPING AND SPLITTING A SINGLE CAUSE OF ACTION RESULTING EITHER TO RES JUDICATA OR LITIS PENDENTIA AS THEY FIND APPLICABLE AGAINST THE RECONVEYANCE COMPLAINT SUBJECT OF THE INSTANT PETITION VIS A VIS THE SIXTEEN [16] OTHER RECONVEYANCE COMPLAINTS OF RESPONDENT BANCO FILIPINO.[30]
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court hereby:Both Banco Filipino and Tala Realty filed Motions for Partial Reconsideration. Tala Realty raised the issue of forum shopping as a result of a derivative suit filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) by Banco Filipino's minority stockholders "to recover its properties/branches, also proceeds of sales of some properties, funds and receivables which have been `warehoused' and all put under trust in the name of defendant Tala, as well as for damages against all defendants xxx who criminally, unlawfully, and immorally covet ownership of properties and misappropriate funds/receivables pertaining and belonging to and owned by Banco Filipino."[33] (Underscoring in the original)SO ORDERED.[32]
- GRANTS the motion to dismiss filed by the defendant Nancy L. Ty and the other defendants, namely: Pedro B. Aguirre, Remedios A. Dupasquier, Pilar D. Ongking, Elizabeth H. Palma, Dolly W. Lim, Rubencito M. Del Mundo, and Add International Services, Inc., and accordingly, the complaint as against them is ordered DISMISSED;
- DENIES the motion to dismiss as far as defendant Tala Realty is concerned. Accordingly, defendant Tala Realty is directed to file its responsive pleading within fifteen (15) days from receipt of this Order; and
- DENIES the motion for reconsideration of the Order dropping defendant Cynthia Mesina as party defendant. (Underscoring supplied)
Nancy filed her own petition before this Court, the third-above captioned petition (G.R. No. 155171),[41] assigning the following errors:I
x x x IN GIVING DUE COURSE TO THIS SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65 WHEN THE PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE FILED AN ORDINARY APPEAL UNDER RULE 45 OF THE SAME RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.II
x x x IN NOT FINDING THAT THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT FOR RECOVERY DID NOT CONSTITUTE ULTIMATE FACTS.III
x x x IN THE APPLICATION OF THE RULE ON PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL IN THE CASE AT BAR.IV
x x x IN NOT FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT IS GUILTY OF SPLITTING ITS CAUSE OF ACTION WHEN IT INSTITUTED THE VARIOUS COMPLAINTS FOR RECOVERY IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE COUNTRY WHICH CAUSE OF ACTION IS PREDICATED UPON THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF A SINGLE TRUST/WAREHOUSING AGREEMENT.V
x x x IN FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT DID NOT ENGAGE IN FORUM-SHOPPING IN FILING THE SEVENTEEN (17) COMPLAINTS FOR RECOVERY AND MORESO SINCE THE SEC CASE FOR RECOVERY WAS STILL PENDING RECONSIDERATION AT THE TIME.[40]
By Resolution of June 18, 2008, this Court consolidated the five petitions.[43]I
THE ORIGINAL ACTION OF CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS IS NOT THE PROPER REMEDY TO QUESTION AN ORDER DISMISSING A COMPLAINT.II
NO WAREHOUSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN BANCO FILIPINO AND TALA WAS REFLECTED OR COULD BE DEDUCED FROM THE 17 APRIL 1979 MINUTES OF THE BOARD MEETING. MOREOVER, THE EXISTENCE OF THIS ALLEGED WAREHOUSING AGREEMENT WAS DISPUTED BY PETITIONER.III
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN REINSTATING THE COMPLAINT WHICH FAILED TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION AS AGAINST PETITIONER.IV
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING OUT THE CHALLENGE ON BANCO FILIPINO'S FORUM SHOPPING AND OF ITS SPLITTING OF ITS CAUSE OF ACTION CONSIDERING THAT:
- THE ALLEGATIONS IN ALL ITS SEVENTEEN (17) COMPLAINTS PLEAD A VIOLATION OF THE SAME SINGLE TRUST AGREEMENT AND CONSTITUTE ONLY ONE CAUSE OF ACTION.
- THE EXECUTION OF VARIOUS DEEDS OF CONVEYANCE DID NOT GIVE RISE TO VARIOUS TRUST AGREEMENTS BUT WAS, AS ALLEGED IN ALL THE SEVENTEEN (17) COMPLAINTS OF BANCO FILIPINO, MERELY IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SINGLE TRUST AGREEMENT.
- ALL SEVENTEEN (17) COMPLAINTS FILED BY BANCO FILIPINO REQUIRE THE PRESENTATION OF ESSENTIALLY THE SAME, IF NOT IDENTICAL, EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THE EXISTENCE OF THE PURPORTED TRUST RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BANCO FILIPINO AND TALA UPON WHICH THE FORMER RELIES ON RECONVEYANCE OF THE PROPERTIES.
- BY SPLITTING A CAUSE OF ACTION, BANCO FILIPINO HAS VIOLATED THE RULE AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING.
V BANCO FILIPINO WAS LIKEWISE GUILTY OF DELIBERATE AND WILLFUL FORUM SHOPPING IN HAVING FILED THIS CIVIL CASE BEFORE THE COURT A QUO DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE DERIVATIVE SUIT FILED BY ITS MINORITY STOCKHOLDERS BEFORE THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION AND EXPRESSLY SUPPORTED BY IT.VI
BANCO FILIPINO'S CLAIM HAS CLEARLY PRESCRIBED.VII
THE PETTION BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS IS FATALLY DEFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO ATTACH PROOF THAT THE PURPORTED REPRESENTATIVE OF BANCO FILIPINO HAS LEGAL CAPACITY TO EXECUTE THE AFFIDAVIT AND CERTIFICATION ON NON-FORUM SHOPPING ATTACHED THERETO. FOR THE SAME REASON, EQUALLY DEFECTIVE IS THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE COURT A QUO.[42]
The Bank alleges that the sale and twenty-year lease of the disputed property were part of a larger implied trust "warehousing agreement." Concomitant with this Court's factual finding that the 20-year contract governs the relations between the parties, we find the Bank's allegation of circumstances surrounding its execution worthy of credence; the Bank and Tala entered into contracts of sale and lease back of the disputed property and created an implied trust "warehousing agreement" for the reconveyance of the property. In the eyes of the law, however, this implied trust is inexistent and void for being contrary to law.[47]Under the doctrine of stare decisis, once a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases where the facts are substantially the same.[51] This Court's ruling quoted in the immediately preceding paragraph on the nullity of the trust agreement which Banco Filipino seeks to enforce thus applies to the present petitions.
x x x x
An implied trust could not have been formed between the Bank and Tala as this Court has held that "where the purchase is made in violation of an existing statute and in evasion of its express provision, no trust can result in favor of the party who is guilty of the fraud."[48]
x x x x
x x x [T]he bank cannot use the defense of nor seek enforcement of its alleged implied trust with Tala since its purpose was contrary to law. As admitted by the Bank, it "warehoused" its branch site holdings to Tala to enable it to pursue its expansion program and purchase new branch sites including its main branch in Makati, and at the same time avoid the real property holdings limit under Sections 25(a) and 34 of the General Banking Act which it had already reached. x x x
Clearly, the Bank was well aware of the limitations on its real estate holdings under the General Banking Act and that its "warehousing agreement" with Tala was a scheme to circumvent the limitation. Thus, the Bank opted not to put the agreement in writing and call a spade a spade, but instead phrased its right to reconveyance of the subject property at any time as a "first preference to buy" at the "same transfer price." This agreement which the Bank claims to be an implied trust is contrary to law. Thus, while we find the sale and lease of the subject property genuine and binding upon the parties, we cannot enforce the implied trust even assuming the parties intended to create it. In the words of the Court in the Ramos case, "the courts will not assist the payor in achieving his improper purpose by enforcing a resultant trust for him in accordance with the `clean hands' doctrine." The Bank cannot thus demand reconveyance of the property based on its alleged implied trust relationship with Tala.[49]
x x x x
The Bank and Tala are in pari delicto, thus, no affirmative relief should be given to one against the other. The Bank should not be allowed to dispute the sale of its lands to Tala nor should Tala be allowed to further collect rent from the Bank. The clean hands doctrine will not allow the creation nor the use of a juridical relation such as a trust to subvert, directly or indirectly, the law. Neither the Bank nor Tala came to court with clean hands; neither will obtain relief from the court as the one who seeks equity and justice must come to court with clean hands. x x x[50] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)