Manuel L. Siquian vs. Faustino Dy, et al.

[SEC CASE NO. 3211. December 9, 1987.] MANUEL L. SIQUIAN , complainant , vs . FAUSTINO DY, ET AL. , respondents . O R D E R Submitted for resolution is respondents' Motion To Dismiss, as well as petitioners' opposition thereto. AaDSEC Respondents, in their motion to dismiss dated October 8, 1987, alleged the following grounds: 1. That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause (Rule 16, Sec. 1(e), namely: SEC Case No. 3016 entitled "Manuel L. Siquian, Vicente L. Siquian, Juan L. Siquian, Jr, Heirs of Jose L. Siquian versus Alfredo T. Ong, Susana C. Ong, Romeo V. Hidalgo, Pacita Feria-Descallar, Juan Siquian, Sr., Maxima Siquian and Malupa Enterprises Corporation, and 2. That petitioners are guilty of "forum-shopping" during the pendency of SEC Case No. 3016, petitioners brought another action with the Regional Trial Court of Ilagan, Isabela, Civil Case No. 307 entitled "J.F. Siquian Lumber Corp., Vicente L. Siquian, Juan L. Siquian, Jr. Manuel L. Siquian, Alex L. Siquian and the Heirs of Jose J. Siquian vs. Monte Alto Timber Resources Corp., Alfredo T. Ong, Susana C, Ong, Fiscal Romeo M. de Jesus, Romeo V. Hidalgo, Pacita Feria-Descallar, Malupa Enterprises Corp., Junie Cua and John Does". In their opposition to the motion to dismiss, petitioners aver the following: 1. That there is no multiplicity of suits as erroneously alleged by the respondents, as what is present is the filing of suits very appropriate in the premises to protect the rights of the petitioners so brazenly violated by the respondents on several counts and different form; 2. That contrary to the allegation of the respondents; there can never be any kind of "forum-shopping" because the liabilities of the respondents for their wrong-doings are administrative, civil and criminal in nature and not only of one kind. as they ignorantly entertained; and, 3. That with the admission of the valid causes of action stated in the complaint in this SEC Case, there is an urgent need for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to prevent the respondents from further inflicting. great and irreparable damages and injuries to herein petitioner. cCAIaD A motion to dismiss based on the ground of a pendency of, another action otherwise known as lis pendens, pre-supposes the following requisites: 1. Identity of parties, or at least such as represent the same interest; 2. Identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for; 3. The relief must be founded on the same facts; and 4. The identity in these particulars should be such that any judgment which may be rendered on the other action will regardless of which party successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration (Alaynar vs. Olaynar, 51 O.G. 6219) A perusal of the allegations of this case (SEC Case No. 3211) and that of another pending case (SEC case No. 3016) filed with this Commission, clearly show that the above-requisites are not present in both cases. The differences are the following: a) As to the identity of parties, or at least such as represent the same interest- In SEC Case NO. 3016, the petitioners are Manuel Siquian, Vicente Siquian, Jr., Alex Siquian, Heirs of Jose Siquian (namely: Milagros, Bobby, Abegail and Archie, all surnamed Siquian), the respondents are Alfredo T. Ong, Susana C. Ong, Romeo V. Hidalgo, Romeo Y. De Jesus, Pacita Feria Descallar, Juan Siquian, Sr., Maximina Siquian and Malupa Enterprises Corporation, while in this instant case (SEC Case No. 3211) the petitioners are Manuel L. Siquian, Vicente L. Siquian, Juan L. Siquian, Jr., Alex L. Siquian, heirs of Jose L. Siquian, and J.F. Siquian Lumber Corporation; and the respondents are Monte Alto Timber Resources corporation, Malupa Enterprises Corporation, Alfredo T. Ong, Susana C. Ong, Romeo Y. de Jesus, Romeo V. Hidalgo and Pacita Feria Descallar. DEHaTC b) As to the identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for- In SEC Case No. 3016, petitioners, among other things, primarily asserted invalidity of the sales of shares by defendants Juan Siquian, Sr. and Maxima Siquian to Malupa Enterprises Corporation and/or to the Alfredo Ong's group, the invalidity of the sale or transfer of license of Siquian Lumber and the transfer of management and control of Siquian Lumber to Malupa and/or the Alfredo Ong's group; and the invalidity of the sale of shares of Siquian Lumber to Susana Ong, Pacita Feria-Descallar, Romero Hidalgo and Romeo de Jesus, and prayed for the declaration of nullity of the above-transactions and, or agreements. While in this case (SEC Case No. 3211) petitioners primarily asserted the nullity of the approval of the amendment changing the Corporate name, J.F. Siquian Lumber Corporation to Monte Alto Timber Resources Corporation and prayed for its cancellation and revocation. DCISAE c) As to the relief which must be founded in the same facts - while the relief on SEC Case No. 3016 is founded on petitioners' claim, that the sales of shares of stocks by defendants Juan Siquian, Sr. and Maximina Siquian to Malupa Enterprises Corporation and/or the Alfredo Ong's group, the sale or transfer of timber license of Siquian Lumber and the transfer of management and control of Siquian lumber to Malupa and/or Alfredo Ong's group; that the sale of shares of Siquian Lumber to Susana Ong, Pacita Feria Descaller, Romeo de Jesus, and the issuance of 300 shares of stocks of Siquian Lumber (Manie Alto) to Alfredo Ong and are not in accordance with law, in the instant case (No. 3211) the relief prayed for is anchored on the fact of the approval of the Amended Articles of Incorporation changing the Corporate name S.F. Siquian Lumber Corporation to Monte Alto Timber Resources Corporation is illegal and unlawful. d) As to the identity in these particulars which should be such-that any judgment which may be rendered on the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under Consideration-The judgment in (SEC Case No. 3016 for declaration of the Validity or Nullifications of the questioned transactions or disposal of shares or assets will not bar the present case (No. 3211) for cancellation or revocation of the approval of the Amended Articles of J.F. Siquian Lumber Corporation. IcTaAH With respect to respondents claim that petitioners are guilty of "forum shopping", and, therefore, this instant case should be dismissed. We regrettably believed that "forum shopping" does not exist with the filing of this case. As already observed, there is between the action at bar and SEC Case No. 3016, no identity as regards parties, although it seems to be perceived, that they represent the same interests in both actions, no identity of rights asserted and relief sought, as well as basis thereof, to a degree sufficient to give rise to the ground for dismissal known as lis pendens. Likewise, the case at bar and Civil Case No. 307, pending in the Regional Trial Court of Ilagan Isabela, do not also show the identities of these particulars of lis pendens, particularly in the rights asserted and relief prayed for. "Forum-Shopping," therefore, as a ground for dismissal will come into play, if all the requisites of lis pendens are present in the actions pending in the different forum. IcDHaT It is to be noted, that the jurisdiction of this Commission is very limited in the nature, i.e., to hear and decide among others, "Intra-Corporate Controversies". (Sec. 5 (b), P.D. 902-A, as amended). So that it is not surprising that parties have to shop for other forum, like the regular courts, for causes of actions not intra-corporate in nature, although it involves the same parties within the same corporation. TacESD WHEREFORE, premises considered, the motion to dismiss should be, as it is hereby DENIED, for lack of merit. Let the hearing for preliminary injunction be set on January 25, 1988 at 9:30 o'clock in the morning. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) JUANITO B. ALMOSA, JR. Hearing Officer