SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 193724. February 25, 2013.]
FELIX T. CHINGKOE AND DKC HOLDINGS CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. FAUSTINO CHINGKOE, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 25 February 2013 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 193724 (Felix T. Chingkoe and DKC Holdings Corporation v. Faustino Chingkoe).
After a careful perusal of the petition, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the April 29, 2010 Decision 1 and September 15, 2010 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. S.P. No. 106692 and DENY the instant petition for failure of petitioners Felix T. Chingkoe (Felix) and DKC Holdings Corporation (DKC) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in nullifying the three (3) Omnibus Orders issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 93, and in dismissing Civil Case No. Q-01-42976.
As correctly found by the CA, the filing of Civil Case No. Q-01-42976 was attended by forum shopping considering that a prior and similar petition for inspection and appointment of management committee, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Case No. 10-94-4906, had already been filed earlier by Felix and was then the subject of a petition for review pending before the CA. 3
Forum shopping is an act of a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum, seeking another (and possibly favorable) opinion in another forum (other than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari) or the institution of two (2) or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. It is an act of malpractice that constitutes a ground for summary dismissal of the actions involved. 4 cAHDES
A party violates the rule against forum shopping when the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. The requisites are: (a) the identity of parties or at least such as representing the same interests in both actions; (b) the identity of rights asserted and the relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two (2) cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other. 5
In the instant case, not only is there an identity of parties in the second petition filed before the RTC and in the first petition filed before the SEC, which was elevated on a petition for review before the CA, but the rights asserted and the reliefs sought by Felix are also the same, i.e., to enforce his rights as a stockholder of DKC by asking for the inspection and accounting of corporate funds and the appointment of a management committee. And, more importantly, since a decision in the prior case had already been rendered by the CA, nullifying the questioned SEC Order on the ground that there was no sufficient evidence of dissipation of DKC assets to justify the creation of a management committee, Felix's second complaint before the RTC likewise praying for inspection, accounting and appointment of management committee for DKC is barred by res judicata.
Since the rule against forum shopping seeks to prevent the vexation brought upon the courts and the litigants by a party who asks different courts to rule on the same or related causes and grant the same or substantially the same reliefs and in the process creates the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issues, willful and deliberate violation of the rule against forum shopping is a ground for summary dismissal of the case. 6 (Brion, J., on leave. Mendoza, J., designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1421 dated February 20, 2013.)
SO ORDERED. cSEaDA
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 66-75. Penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante, with Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Mariflor Punzalan Castillo, concurring.
2. Id. at 99-100.
3. Id. at 1484-1498.
4. Chemphil Export v. CA, G.R. Nos. 112438-39, December 12, 1995, 251 SCRA 257, 291-292, citing Ortigas v. Velasco, G.R. No. 109645, July 25, 1994, 234 SCRA 455, 500.
5. Yap v. Chua, G.R. No. 186730, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 419, 429.
6. Id. at 428.