Chua Vs Metrobank Digest

Chua vs.
Metropolitan bank
Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45
Petitioners: Chua/Filiden
Respondents: Metrobank
Facts:
- Chua and Filiden (the company where Chua is president) obtained P4

million peso loan from Metroank
- This loan is secured by a a real estate mortgage
- Since the value of the collateral was more than the loan, Chua was
given an open credit line for future loans
- Chua/Filiden obtained other loans from respondent Metrobank, and the

real estate mortgages were repeatedly amended in accordance with
the increase in Chua/Filiden’s liabilities.
- Having failed to fully pay their obligations, petitioners entered into a

Debt Settlement Agreement with respondent Metrobank, whereby the
loan was restructured.
- Eventually, the lawyers of Metrobank demanded that Chua/Filiden fully

pay and settle their liabilities, including interest and penalties, in the
total amount ofP103,450,391, as well as the stipulated attorney’s fees,
within three days from receipt of said letter.
- When petitioners still failed to pay their loans, Metrobank sought to

extra-judicially foreclose the REM constituted on the subject
properties. Upon a verified Petition for Foreclosure filed by respondent
Metrobank
- Chua, in his personal capacity and acting on behalf of petitioner

Filiden, filed before Branch 257, a Complaint for Injunction with Prayer
for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), Preliminary
Injunction and Damages (from this point on shall be called Injunction
Complaint).
- RTC-Branch 257 issued a TRO enjoining respondents Metrobank and
Atty. Celestra from conducting the auction sale of the mortgaged
properties on 31 May 2001.
- After the expiration of the TRO on 18 June 2001, and no injunction

having been issued by RTC-Branch 257, respondent Atty. Celestra
reset the auction sale on 8 November 2001.
- On 8 November 2001, the rescheduled date of the auction sale, RTC-

Branch 257 issued an Order directing that the said sale be reset anew
after 8 November 2001.
- Order was served on 8 November 2001, on respondent Atty. Celestra’s

daughter, Arlene Celestra,
- The auction sale, however, proceeded on 8 November 2001, and a

Certificate of Sale was accordingly issued to respondent Metrobank as
the highest bidder of the foreclosed properties.
- Chua amended the Injunction Complaint
o alleged that the Certificate of Sale was a falsified document since

there was no actual sale that took place on 8 November 2001.
o And, even if an auction sale was conducted, the Certificate of

Sale would still be void because the auction sale was done in
disobedience to a lawful order of RTC-Branch 257.
- Chua additionally prayed in their Amended Complaint for the award of

damages
- RTC-Branch 257 denied Chua’s application for injunction on the ground

that the sale of the foreclosed properties rendered the same moot and
academic.
o Ruled that the Nov 8 2001 auction sale was valid
- Chua filed a Motion for Reconsideration
- When RTC-Branch 257 failed to take any action on said Motion,

petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari
- CA reversed RTC-Branch 257, remanded the case for further

proceedings
- The Supreme Court dismissed Metrobank’s appeal with finality
- RTC-Branch 257 set the hearing for the presentation of evidence by

respondent Metrobank for the application for preliminary injunction on
November 9, 2005.
- On 28 October 2005, Chua filed with Branch 195 of the Regional Trial
Court of Parañaque (RTC-Branch 195) a Verified Complaint for
Damages against respondents Metrobank, Atty. Celestra, and three
Metrobank lawyers.
o Chua sought in their Complaint the award of actual, moral, and

exemplary damages against Metrobank for making it appear that
an auction sale of the subject properties took place, as a result of
which, the prospective buyers of the said properties lost their
interest and petitioner Chua was prevented from realizing a
profit of P70,000,000.00 from the intended sale.
- Chua sought the inhibition of Executive Judge of RTC-Branch 257
- Chua’s motion was granted and the case was re-raffled to RTC-Branch
258
- Petitioners filed with RTC-Branch 195 a Motion to Consolidate the

Injunction complaint (which was docketed in RTC-Branch 257) and the
Damages complaint (which was docketed in RTC-Branch 195).
- Metrobank filed with RTC-Branch 195 an Opposition to Motion to

Consolidate with Prayer for Sanctions, praying for the dismissal of the
Complaint for Damages, on the ground of forum shopping.
- RTC-Branch 195 granted the Motion to Consolidate, and ordered that

the Injunction case be transferred to RTC-Branch 258
- Metrobank filed before RTC-Branch 258.
o Motion for Reconsideration of RTC-Branch 195’s order granting

to consolidate
o Manifestation and Motion raising the ground of forum shopping
- RTC-Branch 258 dismissed the Damages Complaint on the ground of

forum shopping
o RTC-Branch 258 declared that the facts or claims submitted by
petitioners, the rights asserted, and the principal parties in the
two cases were the same.
- Chua filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Court of Appeals
- Court of Appeals affirmed Order of RTC-Branch 258. The appellate

court observed that although the defendants in the two cases were not
identical, they represented a community of interest. It also declared
that the cause of action of the two cases, upon which the recovery of
damages was based, was the same
- The Court of Appeals additionally noted that petitioners admitted in

their Motion for Consolidation that the Injunction Complaint and the
Damages Complaint involved the same parties, central issue, and
subject properties.
Additional facts to note:
- Chua/Filiden failed to state in the Certificate of Non-Forum

Shopping, attached to their Verified Complaint for Damages before
RTC-Branch 195, the existence of the Injunction Case pending
before RTC-Branch 258.
-
- In the Injunction Case, the damages purportedly arose from the bad
faith of respondents in offering the subject properties at the auction
sale at a price much lower than the assessed fair market value of the
said properties, said to be P176,117,000.00. On the other hand, the
Damages Complaint, allegedly resulted from the backing out of
prospective buyers, who had initially offered to buy the subject
properties for “not less than P175,000,000.00,” because respondents
made it appear that the said properties were already sold at the
auction sale.
Applicable Law:
The proscription against forum shopping is found in Section 5, Rule 7 of
the 1997 Rules of Court, which provides that:
SEC. 5. Certification against forum shopping.—The plaintiff

or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other
initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn
certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith:
(a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any
claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-
judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other
action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other
pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present
status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same
or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall
report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein
his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not

be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other
initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the
case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon
motion and after hearing. The submission of a false
certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings
therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without
prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal
actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly
constitutes willful and deliberate forum shopping, the
same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice
and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for
administrative sanctions.
First Issue:
WON the two complaints of Chua had a single cause of action.
Held:
YES
In the present case, there is no dispute that petitioners failed to

state in the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping, attached to their
Verified Complaint for Damages before RTC-Branch 195, the existence of
the Injunction Case pending before RTC-Branch 258.
Nevertheless, petitioners insist that they are not guilty of forum
shopping, since
(1) the two cases do not have the same ultimate objective – Injunction
Complaint seeks the annulment of the 8 November 2001 public auction and
certificate of sale issued therein, while the Damages Complaint prays for the
award of actual and compensatory damages for respondents’ tortuous act of
making it appear that an auction sale actually took place on 8 November
2001; and
(2) the judgment in the Injunction Case, on the annulment of the
foreclosure sale, would not affect the outcome of the Damages Case, on the
entitlement of petitioners to damages.
The Court, however, finds these arguments refuted by the allegations
made by petitioners themselves in their Complaints in both cases.
Petitioners committed forum shopping by filing multiple cases based on the

same cause of action, although with different prayers.
There is a splitting of cause of action. Petitioners would like to make it

appear that the Injunction Case was solely concerned with the nullification of
the auction sale and certification of sale, while the Damages Complaint was
a totally separate claim for damages. Yet, a review of the records reveals
that petitioners also included an explicit claim for damages in their
Amended Complaint
Petitioners averred in their Amended Complaint in the Injunction Case that

the assessed fair market value of the subject properties
was P176,117,000.00.[39]
The Court observes that the damages being claimed by petitioners in their
Damages Complaint were also occasioned by the supposedly fictitious 8
November 2001foreclosure sale,
There is no question that the claims of petitioners for damages in Civil
Case No. CV-01-0207 and Civil Case No. CV-05-0402 are premised on the
same cause of action, i.e., the purportedly wrongful conduct of respondents
in connection with the foreclosure sale of the subject properties.
At first glance, said claims for damages may appear different. In the
Injunction Case, the damages purportedly arose from the bad faith of
respondents in offering the subject properties at the auction sale at a price
much lower than the assessed fair market value of the said properties, said
to be P176,117,000.00. On the other hand, the Damages Complaint,
allegedly resulted from the backing out of prospective buyers, who had
initially offered to buy the subject properties for “not less
than P175,000,000.00,” because respondents made it appear that the said
properties were already sold at the auction sale. Yet, it is worthy to note
that petitioners quoted closely similar values for the subject
properties in both cases, against which they measured the damages
they supposedly suffered. Evidently, this is due to the fact that
petitioners actually based the said values on the single appraisal
report of the Philippine Appraisal Company on the subject
properties. Even though petitioners did not specify in their Amended
Complaint in the Injunction Case the exact amount of damages they were
seeking to recover, leaving the same to the determination of the trial court,
and petitioners expressly prayed that they be awarded damages of not less
than P70,000,000.00 in their Damages complaint, petitioners cannot deny
that all their claims for damages arose from what they averred was
a fictitious public auction sale of the subject properties.
Moreover, petitioners admitted in their Motion to Consolidate before]RTC-

Branch 195 that both cases shared the same parties, the same central issue,
and the same subject property.
Second Issue:
WON the forum shopping was willful and deliberate, and the Damages Case
should be dismissed with prejudice to the Injunction Case
Held:
NO
If the forum shopping is not considered willful and deliberate, the subsequent
case shall be dismissed without prejudice, on the ground of either litis
pendentia or res judicata. However, if the forum shopping is willful and
deliberate, both (or all, if there are more than two) actions shall be
dismissed with prejudice..[43] In this case, petitioners did not
deliberately file the Damages Case for the purpose of seeking a
favorable decision in another forum. Otherwise, they would not
have moved for the consolidation of both cases. Thus, only the
Damages Case is dismissed and the hearing of the Injunction Case
before RTC-Branch 258 will be continued.

Chua Vs Metrobank Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chua Vs Metrobank Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chua Vs Metrobank Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chua vs.

Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45

- Chua and Filiden (the company where Chua is president) obtained P4

- This loan is secured by a a real estate mortgage

- Chua/Filiden obtained other loans from respondent Metrobank, and the

- Having failed to fully pay their obligations, petitioners entered into a

- Eventually, the lawyers of Metrobank demanded that Chua/Filiden fully

- When petitioners still failed to pay their loans, Metrobank sought to

- Chua, in his personal capacity and acting on behalf of petitioner

- After the expiration of the TRO on 18 June 2001, and no injunction

- On 8 November 2001, the rescheduled date of the auction sale, RTC-

- Order was served on 8 November 2001, on respondent Atty. Celestra’s

- The auction sale, however, proceeded on 8 November 2001, and a

- Chua amended the Injunction Complaint

o alleged that the Certificate of Sale was a falsified document since

o And, even if an auction sale was conducted, the Certificate of

- Chua additionally prayed in their Amended Complaint for the award of

- RTC-Branch 257 denied Chua’s application for injunction on the ground

o Ruled that the Nov 8 2001 auction sale was valid

- Chua filed a Motion for Reconsideration

- When RTC-Branch 257 failed to take any action on said Motion,

- CA reversed RTC-Branch 257, remanded the case for further

- RTC-Branch 257 set the hearing for the presentation of evidence by

o Chua sought in their Complaint the award of actual, moral, and

- Chua sought the inhibition of Executive Judge of RTC-Branch 257

- Petitioners filed with RTC-Branch 195 a Motion to Consolidate the

- Metrobank filed with RTC-Branch 195 an Opposition to Motion to

- RTC-Branch 195 granted the Motion to Consolidate, and ordered that

- Metrobank filed before RTC-Branch 258.

o Motion for Reconsideration of RTC-Branch 195’s order granting

o Manifestation and Motion raising the ground of forum shopping

- RTC-Branch 258 dismissed the Damages Complaint on the ground of

- Court of Appeals affirmed Order of RTC-Branch 258. The appellate

- The Court of Appeals additionally noted that petitioners admitted in

Additional facts to note:

- Chua/Filiden failed to state in the Certificate of Non-Forum

SEC. 5. Certification against forum shopping.—The plaintiff

Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not

WON the two complaints of Chua had a single cause of action.

In the present case, there is no dispute that petitioners failed to

Petitioners committed forum shopping by filing multiple cases based on the

There is a splitting of cause of action. Petitioners would like to make it

Petitioners averred in their Amended Complaint in the Injunction Case that

Moreover, petitioners admitted in their Motion to Consolidate before]RTC-

You might also like