ABS-CBN Corp. v. ABC Development Corp.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 201664. October 16, 2019.]

ABS-CBN CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.ABC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL., respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 16, 2019which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 201664 (ABS-CBN CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ABC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL.) — After a judicious perusal of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for review and to AFFIRM the September 5, 2011 decision and the April 26, 2012 resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 117063, for failure of the petitioner to sufficiently show any reversible error on the part of the CA in declaring the petitioner guilty of forum shopping.

Forum shopping can be committed in three (3) ways: (1) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal is litispendentia); (2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved (where the ground for dismissal is resjudicata); or (3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action, but with different prayers (splitting of causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also either litispendentia or resjudicata). 1

Here, the petitioner committed forum shopping of the third kind — by splitting the cause of action — when it filed separate cases with different reliefs but with both cases arising from a single cause of action. In Chua v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, 2 the Court discussed the perils of splitting a cause of action, thus:

Sections 3 and 4, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court proscribe the splitting of a single cause of action:

Section 3. A party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action.

Section 4. Splitting a single cause of action; effect of. — If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others.

Forum shopping occurs although the actions seem to be different, when it can be seen that there is a splitting of a cause of action. A cause of action is understood to be the delict or wrongful act or omission committed by the defendant in violation of the primary rights of the plaintiff. It is true that a single act or omission can violate various rights at the same time, as when the act constitutes juridically a violation of several separate and distinct legal obligations. However, where there is only one delict or wrong, there is but a single cause of action regardless of the number of rights that may have been violated belonging to one person. 3

As correctly held by the CA, Wilfredo Revillame's (Revillame) refusal to "honor [his] Talent Agreement by not working for a rival network" 4 is the delict that purportedly violated the petitioner's rights in the separate claims. Thus, the petitioner resorted to forum shopping when it filed a complaint for infringement, the cause of action of which is similar to its compulsory counterclaim in Civil Case No. Q-10-67770 considering that both can be traced from Revillame's refusal to honor his TalentAgreement.

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari; AFFIRMS the decision dated September 5, 2011 and the resolution dated April 26, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 117063; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay costs of suit.

SO ORDERED."Perlas-Bernabe, J.,on official business; Gesmundo, J.,designated as Acting Working Chairperson per Special Order No. 2717 dated October 10, 2019;Zalameda, J.,designated as Additional Member per Special Order No. 2712 dated September 27, 2019.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Lanao del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Provincial Government of Lanao Del Norte, G.R. No. 185420, August 29, 2017, 838 SCRA 27, 43.

2. G.R. No. 182311, August 19, 2009, 596 SCRA 524.

3.Id. at 536-537.

4.Rollo, Vol. I, p. 14.