FPIB v CA

[G.R. No. 115849. January 24, 1996]

DOCTRINE

The doctrine of forum non conveniens provides that a court, in conflicts of law cases, may refuse
impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the most “convenient” or available forum and the
parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere.

FACTS
Producer Bank of the Philippines acquired 6 parcels of land with a total area of 101 hectares located at
Don Jose, Sta. Rosa, Laguna and covered by TCT No. T-106932 to T-106937. The property used to be
owned by BYME Investment and Development Corporation which had them mortgaged with the bank as
collateral for a loan. The plaintiff originals, Demetrio Demetria and Jose Janolo wanted to purchase the
property and thus initiated negotiations for that purpose.
In August 1987 Demetrio Demetria and Jose Janolo, upon the suggestion of BYME investment’s legal
counsel, Fajardo met with defendant Mercurio Rivera, manager of the property management department of
the defendant bank. The meeting was held in pursuant to plaintiffs’ plan to buy the property. After the
meeting, plaintiff Janolo, following the advice of defendant Rivera made a formal purchase offer to the
Bank through a letter dated August 30,1987. Negotiations took place and an offer price was fixed at
P5.5million. During the course of the negotiations, the defendant bank was placed under conservatorship
and a new conservator, Leonida Encarnacion, sought the repudiation of the agreement as it alleged that
Rivera was not authorized to enter into such an agreement, hence there was no valid contract of sale.
Subsequently, Demetria and Janolo sued Producers Bank.
Meanwhile, Henry Co, who holds 80% shares of stocks with the said Bank, filed a motion for intervention
with the trial court. The trial court denied the motion since the trial has been concluded already and the case
is now pending appeal. Subsequently, Co, assisted by ACCRA law office, filed a separate civil case against
Demetria and Janolo seeking to have the purported contract of sale be declared unenforceable against the
Bank. Demetria et al argued that the second case constitutes forum shopping was appointed to which the
name has. The regional trial court ruled in favor of Demetria et al. The Bank filed an appeal with the Court
of Appeals.

ISSUE: WON there is forum shopping

HELD
Yes. There is forum shopping because there is identity of interest and parties between the first case and
the second case. There is identity of interest because both cases sought to have the agreement, which
involves the same property, be declared unenforceable as against the Bank. There is identity of parties
even though the first case is in the name of the bank as defendant, and the second case is in the name
of Henry Co as plaintiff. There is still forum shopping here because Henry Co essentially represents
the bank. Both cases aim to have the bank escape liability from the agreement it entered into with
Demetria et al.
The Supreme Court also discussed that to combat forum shopping, which originated as a concept in
international law, the principle of forum non conveniens was developed. The doctrine of forum non
conveniens provides that a court, in conflicts of law cases, may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction
where it is not the most “convenient” or available forum and the parties are not precluded from seeking
remedies elsewhere.