G.R. No.

193494, March 07, 2014

LUI ENTERPRISES, INC., Petitioner, v.

ZUELLIG PHARMA CORPORATION AND THE PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, Respondents.

FACTS:

a. Lui Enterprises, Inc. and Zuellig Pharma Corporation entered into a 10year contract of lease over a parcel of land.
b. Zuellig Pharma received a letter from the Philippine Bank of Communications. Claiming to be the new owner of the leased
property and asking the rent be paid directly to it.
c. Lui Enterprises wrote to Zuellig Pharma and insisted on its right to collect the leased propertys rent.

Issue:
Whether the annulment of deed of donation in payment pending in the Regional Trial Court of Davao barred the subsequent
filing of the interpleader case in the Regional Trial Court of Makati.
Ruling:

Under Rule 16, Section 1, paragraph (e) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion to dismiss may be filed on the ground of
litis pendentia. Litis pendentia is Latin for a pending suit. It exists when another action is pending between the same parties for the
same cause of action x x x. The subsequent action is unnecessary and vexatious and is instituted to harass the respondent [in the
subsequent action].

The requisites of litis pendentia are:

(1) Identity of parties or at least such as represent the same interest in both actions;
(2) Identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts; and
(3) The identity in the two cases should be such that the judgment that may be rendered in one would, regardless of which party
is successful, amount to res judicata in the other.

All of the requisites must be present. Absent one requisite, there is no litis pendentia.

In this case, there is no litis pendentia since there is no identity of parties in the nullification of deed of dation in payment case
and the interpleader case. Zuellig Pharma is not a party to the nullification case filed in the Davao trial court.

There is also no identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for. Lui Enterprises filed the first case to nullify the deed of dation in
payment it executed in favor of the Philippine Bank of Communications. Zuellig Pharma subsequently filed the interpleader case to
consign in court the rental payments and extinguish its obligation as lessee. The interpleader case was necessary and was not
instituted to harass either Lui Enterprises or the Philippine Bank of Communications.
 Thus, the pending nullification case did not bar the filing of the interpleader case.

In this case, the nullification of deed of dation in payment case was filed by Lui Enterprises against the Philippine Bank of
Communications. The interpleader case was filed by Zuellig Pharma against Lui Enterprises and the Philippine Bank of
Communications. A different plaintiff filed the interpleader case against Lui Enterprises and the Philippine Bank of Communications.
Thus, there is no identity of parties, and the first requisite of litis pendentia is absent.

As discussed, Lui Enterprises filed the nullification of deed of dation in payment to recover ownership of the leased premises.
Zuellig Pharma filed the interpleader case to extinguish its obligation to pay rent. There is no identity of reliefs prayed for, and the
second requisite of litis pendentia is absent.

Since two requisites of litis pendentia are absent, the nullification of deed of dation in payment case did not bar the filing of the
interpleader case.

Lui Enterprises alleged that the Regional Trial Court of Davao issued a writ of preliminary injunction against the Regional Trial
Court of Makati. The Regional Trial Court of Davao allegedly enjoined the Regional Trial Court of Makati from taking cognizance of the
interpleader case. At any rate, the Regional Trial Court of Davaos order was not a preliminary injunction. It was a mere order directing
the Philippine Bank of Communications to inform Zuellig Pharma to pay rent to Lui Enterprises while the status quo between Lui
Enterprises and Philippine Bank of Communications was subsisting. The Regional Trial Court of Davao did not enjoin the proceedings
before the Regional Trial Court of Makati. Thus, the Regional Trial Court of Davao did not enjoin the Regional Trial Court of Makati from
hearing the interpleader case.
LUI ENTERPRISES, INC., Petitioner, v ZUELLIG PHARMA CORPORATION AND THE PHILIPPINE BANK
OF COMMUNICATIONS, Respondents.
Petition for review on
Petitioner was summoned Rule 51
certiorari of the Court
Commencement of on July 4, 2003 Sec 2,b
of Appeals
action

Rule 16,
RTC render
Sec 2 Rule 14, Judgment
Rule 1, Sec 1 Rule 41
Sec 5 Sec 2,b

Rule 15,
Respondent 2 filed its Sec 4
Petitioner filed a motion to CA render
Respondent 1 (Zuellig argument
dismiss on July 23, 2003 Judgment (Affirm
Pharma) filed a complaint (Hearing of motion)
RTC Decision)
for interpleader with the
Regional Trial Court of
Makati RTC Makati heard the
Rule 16,
Rule 16, interpleader without the
Sec 1 petitioner (failed to file motion
Sec 1
for reconsideration)

Rule 19,
Sec 3 Rule 51
Petitioner (Lui Enterprises) Respondent 1 filed a Sec 4
filed a motion to dismiss MOTION to declare petitioner Rule 16,
in default Sec 3

Respondent 2 (Philippine
Bank of Communications)
filed answer for Rule 19,
interpleader with the Rule 9, RTC decided in favour of
Sec 4
Regional Trial Court of Sec 3 Respondent 1 and dismissed
G.R. No. 191906 June 2, 2014
Makati motion to dismiss filed by
petitioner
JOSELITO MA. P. JACINTO (Formerly President of F. Jacinto Group, Inc.),
Petitioner, vs. EDGARDO* GUMARU, JR., Respondent.

"When a judgment has been satisfied, it passes beyond review", and "there are no more proceedings to speak of inasmuch as these were terminated by the
satisfaction of the judgment."

FACTS:
a. Petitioner and F. Jacinto Group, Inc. filed an appeal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
b. The appeal was not perfected for failure to post the proper cash or surety bond. Thus, the December 6, 2004 Decision became final and executory.
c. A Writ of Execution was issued in the labor case. By virtue of such alias writ, real property belonging to petitioner was levied upon, and was scheduled to
be sold at auction on June 27, 2008 or July 4, 2008. The Labor Arbiter issued an Order denying petitioners Extremely Urgent Motion to Lift and Annul
Levy on Execution.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals should not have dismissed the subject petition.

RULING:

The Court finds that the Petition has become moot and academic. It is true, as petitioner asserts, that if for reasonable or justifiable reasons he is unable to
sign the verification and certification against forum shopping in his CA Petition, he may execute a special power of attorney designating his counsel of record to
sign the Petition on his behalf. For the guidance of the bench and bar, the Court restates in capsule form the jurisprudential pronouncements already reflected
above respecting noncompliance with the requirements on, or submission of defective, verification and certification against forum shopping:

1. A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective verification, and non-compliance with the
requirement on or submission of defective certification against forum shopping.
2. As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order its
submission or correction or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order
that the ends of justice may be served thereby.
3. Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition
signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct.
4. As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent
submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of "substantial compliance" or presence of "special circumstances or
compelling reasons."
5. The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as
parties to the case. Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a
common cause of action or defense, the signature of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping substantially complies with the Rule.
6. Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be executed by the party-pleader, not by his counsel.
 However, for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a Special Power of Attorney designating his counsel
of record to sign on his behalf. While the Court takes the petitioner's side with regard to the procedural issue dealing with verification and the certification
against forum shopping, it nonetheless appears that the Petition has been overtaken by events. In a May 24, 2011 Manifestation, respondent informed this
Court that the judgment award has been satisfied in full. The petitioner does not dispute this claim, in which case, the labor case is now deemed ended. "It is
axiomatic that after a judgment has been fully satisfied, the case is deemed terminated once and for all. "And "when a judgment has been satisfied, it passes
beyond review, satisfaction being the last act and the end of the proceedings, and payment or satisfaction of the obligation thereby established produces
permanent and irrevocable discharge; hence, a judgment debtor who acquiesces to and voluntarily complies with the judgment is estopped from taking an
appeal therefrom.
JOSELITO MA. P. JACINTO (Formerly President of F. Jacinto Group, Inc.), Petitioner, vs.
EDGARDO GUMARU, JR., Respondent.

Commencement of
action Judgment debtor acquiesces to
and voluntarily complies with
the judgment

Petitioner filed an appeal to

CA decided the case as
NLRC
(perfected for failure to post the
moot and academic
proper cash or surety bond)
Final and executoy
Rule 14,
Sec 1

Writ of Execution was issued

Petitioners real property to be Rule 52,
sold at auction Sec 1

Defective, verification and

certification against forum
Petitioner appealed the Labor shopping
Arbiters
Petitioner filed his Motion for
Reconsideration
the Labor Arbiter denying
petitioners Motion
Rule 7,
Sec 5
Petitioner petitioned for certiorari Rule 41,
to the Court of Appeals Sec 13

Rule 41
Sec 2,c Estopped from taking an
CA Appeals denied and appeal
dismiss the petition