Sps. Marasigan VS.

Chevron Phils

FACTS Spouses Marasigan were operators of a gasoline station while chevron is a corporation engaged in the business distributing manufacturing and marketing of fuels and other petroleum products they entered into a dealership and distributorship agreement wherein the former can purchase petroleum products from the latter on credit. To complete said agreement, Sps. Marasigan executed deeds of REM over their properties as collateral in favor of Chevron. On September 1993, petitioners exceeded the credit line. They also failed to pay despite demand. Chevron, through its counsel ACCRA LAW, initiated a foreclosure proceeding. Chevron was able to foreclose the REM of the Sps but the proceeds were not enough to cover the entire obligation. On November 7, 1995, Chevron filed a complaint for sum of money against the Spd Marasigan in RTC Makati to recover the deficiency. In ther answer, sps alleged that they were prejudiced because the foreclosure was illegal and that the bid price was shockingly low. On February 7, 1996 Sps Marasigan filed a complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Foreclosure before RTC Gumaca. Chevron filed a motion to dismiss for the sps failed to disclose in their cnfs the pending case filed before the RTC Makati and consequent violation of litis pendentia. On August 21, 1996, RTC issued an order denying the motion to dismiss ruling that there was no fs because there was no decision yet in RTC Makati On January 4, 2005, RTC Gumaca rendered a decision in favor of the sps Marasigan. Chevron applead to the CA. CA in its decision, reversed and set aside the RTC decision, hence this petition ISSUE: WON elements of litis pendentia are present. HELD: Litis pendentia requires the concurrence of the following requisites: 1) identity of the parties or at least such parties as those representing the same interests in both action; 2 )identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for 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 judicata. In the case at bench, all the requisites of litis endentia are present. In the first requisite, Chevron and Sps Marasigan are the same parties in the RTC Makati and RTC Gumaca case. The second element, the complaint filed in RTC Makati was for a sum of money while that in RTC Gumaca was for Declaration of Nullity of Foreclosure. Although different in nature, same facts would be alleged and same evidence would be presented considering that the resolution of both cases would be based on the validity of the same credit lines, REM and foreclosure proceeding. Finally, the sps do not deny the fact that the affirmative defense that they raised in RTC Makati was the illegality of the foreclosure sale. They raised the same issue in RTC Gumaca Case. Hence, the judgment in RTC Makati will constitute res judicata in RTC Gumaca and vice versa.

Medado VS. The heirs of the late Antonio Consing rep by Dr. Soledad Consing Facts: In 1996, Meritus Rey Medado and Elsa Medado and the estate of the late Antonio Consing as represented by Soledad Consing executed Deeds of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage for the formers acquisition form the latter of th e property located in Cadiz City. As part of the deal, Sps Medado undertook to assume the estates loan with PNB. However, subsequent to the sale, the estate of Consing offered the property to the government via DARs Voluntary Offer to Sell Program. On November 22, 2000, Sps Medado instituted with the RTC an action for rescission and damages against the estate of Consing for failure to meet the conditions in the agreement. Pending action for rescission, LBP issued in favor of the estate of Consing a Certificate of Deposit of cash and agrarian reform bonds. Due to the fear that LBP would release the full proceeds thereof, Sps Medado instituted an action for injunction. RTC ordered the granting of the application of the issuance of the writs. On appeal, respondents sought among other reliefs and dismissal of the complaint for injunction for violation of the rules on litis pendentia and forum shopping. The sps Medado on the other hand questioned the authority of Soledad to sign the petitions cnfs on behalf of her copetitioners. CA granted appeal and rendered RTC decision null and void. Sps Medado filed a Motion for Recon but the same was denied. Hence this petition. Issues: WON respondents complied with the reqts for verification and cnfs. WON elements of litis pendentia are present. WON petition for certitorari under Rule 65 can be accepted even if the Motion for Recon was withdrawn before he could act on it. Held: As to the first issue, respondents complied with the reqts foer verification and cnfs. Records show that Soledad signed the verification and cnfs on behalf of her cpetitioners by virtue of a SPA. On the second issue, there was clearly a violation of the rule against forum shopping when Sps Medado nothwithstanding the pendency of the civil ncase for rescission of contract and damages. All elements of litis pendentia are present with the filling of the two cases. On the last issue, a motion for recon is a condition sen qua non before a petition for certiorari may lie, its purpose being to grant an opportunity for the court a quo to correct any error attributed to it by re-examining of legal and factual circumstances of the case. there are however several exceptions such as when the filing of the motion appears to be useless given the circumstances attending the action.

Negros Slashers VS. Alvin Teng Facts: Alvin Teng is a professional basketball player who started his career in the Philippine Basketball Association and then later on played in the Metropolitan Basketball Association(MBA). On February 4, 1999, Teng signed a 3-year contract with Laguna Lakers. Before he xpiratio of the contract, Laguna Lakers traded andor transferred Teng to Negros Slashers. On Game 4 of the MBA Championship round for the year 2000, Teng had a below par playing performance. Because of this, the coaching staff decided to pull him out of the game. On the following game which happened to be the final round, Teng called in sick and did not play. Vicente Tan, Finance Head of the Negros slshers required Tend to explain such action. An investigation was set but did not push through Tend was absent. On March 16, 2001, the management of Negros Slashers terminated Teng from the team. On June 28,2001 Teng filed a complaint before the Office of the Commissioner of the MBA pursuant to the provision of the Uniform Players Contract. Subsequently, on November 6, Teng filed an action for illegal dismissal with the Regional Arbitration of the NLRC. The Labor Arboter issued a decision finding Tengs dismissal illegal. On appeal, NLRC set aside and reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Teng filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. CA reinstated the findings of the labor arbiter. Hence, this petition. Issue: WON Judgment of the Office of MBA constitute res judicata. Held: NO. The office of the Commissioner of the MBA is not a court of competent jurisdiction as contemplated by law with respect to the application of doctrine of res judicata. At best, the Office of the Commissioner of MBA is a private mediator or gobetween as agreed upon by team management and a player in the MBA players contract of employment,