4.progressive Development Corporation, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 637, January 22, 1999

2/27/22, 11:04 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 301
VOL. 301, JANUARY 22, 1999 637

Progressive Development Corporation, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals
VOL. 301, JANUARY 22, 1999 637

Appeals
*
G.R. No. 123555. January 22, 1999.
PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC.,

petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and WESTIN
SEAFOOD MARKET, INC., respondents.
Actions; Certiorari; Motions for Reconsideration; Pleadings

and Practice; The filing of a motion for reconsideration before
availing of the remedy of certiorari is not sine qua non when the
issue raised is one purely of law, or where the error is patent or the
disputed order is void, or the questions raised on certiorari are the
same as those already squarely presented to and passed upon by
the lower court.— There is merit in the petition. While generally a
motion for reconsideration must first be filed before resorting to
certiorari in order to give the lower court an opportunity to correct
the errors imputed to it this rule admits of exceptions and is not
intended to be applied without considering the circumstances of
the case. The filing of the motion for reconsideration before
availing of the remedy of certiorari is not sine qua non when the
issue raised is one purely of law, or where the error is patent or
the disputed order is void, or the questions raised on certiorari are
the same as those already squarely presented to and passed upon
by the lower court.
_________________
* SECOND DIVISION.
638
638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f392388e317fb67a5000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/21
Progressive Development Corporation, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Same; Same; Same; Same; Where in an action for damages

before the RTC the court outrightly rejected a motion for dismissal
wherein the movant raised the ground that another action for
forcible entry was pending at the MeTC between the same parties
involving the same matter and cause of action, any motion for
reconsideration would have been a pointless exercise.—In its
motion for dismissal of the action for damages with the RTC
petitioner raised the ground that another action for forcible entry
was pending at the MeTC between the same parties involving the
same matter and cause of action. Outrightly rejected by the RTC,
the same issue was elevated by petitioner on certiorari before the
Court of Appeals. Clearly, under the prevailing circumstance, any
motion for reconsideration of the trial court would have been a
pointless exercise.
Same; Ejectment; Forcible Entry; Unlawful Detainer; Courts;
Jurisdiction; Damages; All cases for forcible entry or unlawful
detainer shall be filed before the Municipal Trial Court which
shall include not only the plea for restoration of possession but also
all claims for damages and costs arising therefrom.—Section 1 of
Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides that any person deprived of
the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation,
threat, strategy or stealth, or against whom the possession of any
land or building is unlawfully withheld, may bring an action in
the proper Municipal Trial Court against the person or persons
unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession, together with
damages and costs. The mandate under this rule is categorical:
that all cases for forcible entry or unlawful detainer shall be filed
before the Municipal Trial Court which shall include not only the
plea for restoration of possession but also all claims for damages
and costs arising therefrom. Otherwise expressed, no claim for
damages arising out of forcible entry or unlawful detainer may be
filed separately and independently of the claim for restoration of
possession.
Same; Same; Motions to Dismiss; Res Judicata; Elements; The
pendency of another action between the same parties for the same
cause is a ground for dismissal of an action.—This is consistent
with the principle laid down in Sec. 1, par. (e), of Rule 16 of the
Rules of Court which states that the pendency of another action
between the same parties for the same cause is a ground for
dismissal of an action. Res adjudicata requires that there must be
between the action sought to be dismissed and the other action
the following elements: (a) identity of parties or at least such as
representing the
639
VOL. 301, JANUARY 22, 1999 639
same interest in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and

relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and,
(c) the identity in the two (2) preceding particulars should be such
that any judgment which may be rendered on the other action
will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res
adjudicata in the action under consideration.
Same; Pleadings and Practice; Jurisprudence is unequivocal
that when a single delict or wrong is committed—like the unlawful
taking or detention of the property of another—there is but one
single cause of action regardless of the number of rights that may
have been violated, and all such rights should be alleged in a
single complaint as constituting one single cause of action.—The
other claims for moral and exemplary damages cannot also
succeed considering that these sprung from the main incident
being heard before the MeTC. Jurisprudence is unequivocal that
when a single delict or wrong is committed—like the unlawful
taking or detention of the property of another—there is but one
single cause of action regardless of the number of rights that may
have been violated, and all such rights should be alleged in a
single complaint as constituting one single cause of action.
Same; Same; Forcible Entry; The unlawful act of a deforciant
in taking possession of a piece of land by means of force and
intimidation against the rights of the party actually in possession
thereof is a delict or wrong, or a cause of action that gives rise to
two (2) remedies, namely, the recovery of possession and recovery of
damages arising from the loss of possession, but only to one action
—both remedies cannot be the subject of two (2) separate and
independent actions, for recovery of possession and for recovery of
damages.—In a forcible entry case, the real issue is the physical
possession of the real property. The question of damages is merely
secondary or incidental, so much so that the amount thereof does
not affect the jurisdiction of the court. In other words, the
unlawful act of a deforciant in taking possession of a piece of land
by means of force and intimidation against the rights of the party
actually in possession thereof is a delict or wrong, or a cause of
action that gives rise to two (2) remedies, namely, the recovery of
possession and recovery of damages arising from the loss of
possession, but only to one action. For obvious reasons, both
remedies cannot be the subject of two (2) separate and
independent actions, one for recovery of possession
640
only, and the other, for the recovery of damages. That would
inevitably lead to what is termed in law as splitting up a cause of
action.
Same; Same; A claim cannot be divided in such a way that a
part of the amount of damages may be recovered in one case and
the rest, in another.—A claim cannot be divided in such a way that
a part of the amount of damages may be recovered in one case and
the rest, in another. In Bachrach v. Icarangal we explained that
the rule was aimed at preventing repeated litigations between the
same parties in regard to the same subject of the controversy and
to protect the defendant from unnecessary vexation. Nemo debet
bis vexari pro una et eadem causa.
Same; Same; If a suit is brought for a part of a claim, a
judgment obtained in that action precludes the plaintiff from
bringing a second action for the residue of the claim,
notwithstanding that the second form of action is not identical
with the first or different grounds for relief are set for the second
suit.—What then is the effect of the dismissal of the other action?
Since the rule is that all such rights should be alleged in a single
complaint, it goes without saying that those not therein included
cannot be the subject of subsequent complaints for they are
barred forever. If a suit is brought for a part of a claim, a
judgment obtained in that action precludes the plaintiff from
bringing a second action for the residue of the claim,
notwithstanding that the second form of action is not identical
with the first or different grounds for relief are set for the second
suit. This principle not only embraces what was actually
determined, but also extends to every matter which the parties
might have litigated in the case.
Same; Same; Forum-Shopping; Words and Phrases; There is
forum-shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion in one
forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or
certiorari) in another.—The foregoing discussions provide
sufficient basis to petitioner’s charge that private respondent and
its counsel in the trial courts committed forum-shopping. In
Crisostomo v. Securities and Exchange Commission we ruled—
There is forum-shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse
opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other
than by appeal or certiorari) in another. The principle applies x x
x with respect to suits filed in the courts x x x in connection with
litigations commenced in the court x x x in anticipation of an
unfavorable x x x ruling and a favorable
641
VOL. 301, JANUARY 22, 1999 641
case where the court in which the second suit was brought, has no
jurisdiction.
Same; Same; Same; The reason behind the proscription of
forum shopping is obvious—forum shopping unnecessarily
burdens our courts with heavy caseloads, unduly taxes the
manpower and financial resources of the judiciary and trifles with
and mocks our judicial processes, thereby adversely affecting the
efficient administration of justice.—This Court likewise elucidated
in New Pangasinan Review, Inc. v. National Labor Relations
Commission that there is forum shopping when the actions
involve the same transactions, the same essential facts and
circumstances. The reason behind the proscription of forum
shopping is obvious. This unnecessarily burdens our courts with
heavy caseloads, unduly taxes the manpower and financial
resources of the judiciary and trifles with and mocks our judicial
processes, thereby adversely affecting the efficient administration
of justice. This condemnable conduct has prompted the Court to
issue circulars ordering among others that a violation thereof
shall be cause for the dismissal of the case or cases without
prejudice to the taking of appropriate action against the counsel
or party concerned.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala & Cruz for
petitioner.
Tomas Carmelo T. Araneta for private respondent.
BELLOSILLO, J.:
May the lessee which instituted before the Metropolitan

Trial Court an action for forcible entry with damages
against its lessor file a separate suit with the Regional
Trial Court against the same lessor for moral and
exemplary damages plus actual and compensatory
damages based on the same forcible entry?
On grounds of litis pendencia and forum-shopping,
petitioner invokes established jurisprudence that a party
cannot
642

Appeals
by varying the form of action or adopting a different

method of presenting his case evade the principle that the
same cause of action shall not be litigated
1
twice between
the same parties or their privies. Petitioner therefore
prays for reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals
dated 27 May 1995, as well as its Resolution dated 17
January 1996 denying reconsideration, which upheld the
denial by the Regional Trial Court of petitioner’s motion to
dismiss private respondent’s damage suit.
The antecedents: On 27 May 1991 petitioner leased to
private respondent Westin Seafood Market, Inc., a parcel of
land with a commercial building thereon located at Araneta
Center, Cubao, Quezon City, for a period of nine (9) years
and three (3) months, i.e., from 2 January 1989 to 30 April
1998, with a monthly rental of approximately P600,000.00.
The contract contained, among others, the following
pertinent terms and conditions:
EFFECT OF VIOLATIONS
25. LESSEE hereby agrees that all the provisions contained in

this Contract shall be deemed as conditions, as well as covenants,
and that this Contract shall be automatically terminated and
cancelled without resorting to court action should LESSEE violate
any or all said conditions, including the payment of Rent, CUSA
and other charges indicated in the FLP when due within the time
herein stipulated and in any such cases, LESSEE hereby
irrevocably appoints LESSOR, its authorized agents, employees
and/or representatives as his duly authorized attorney-in-fact,
even after the termination, expiration or cancellation of this
Contract, with full power and authority to open, enter, reposses,
secure, enclose, fence and otherwise take full and complete
physical possession and control of the leased premises and its
contents without resorting to court action and/or to summarily
disconnect electrical and/or water services thereof, and that
LESSEE hereby irrevocably empowers LESSOR, his authorized
agents, employees and/or representatives to take inventory and
possession of whatever equipment, furniture, articles,
merchandise, appliances, etc., found therein belonging to
LESSEE,
_______________
1 Peñalosa v. Tuason, 22 Phil. 303 (1912).
643
VOL. 301, JANUARY 22, 1999 643

consignors and/or to any other persons and to place the same in

LESSOR’s warehouse or any other place at LESSOR’s discretion
for safekeeping; charging LESSEE the corresponding storage fees
therefor; that in case LESSEE fails to claim said equipment,
furniture, articles, merchandise, appliances, etc. from storage and
simultaneously liquidate any liability with LESSOR within seven
(7) days from date of said transfer to LESSOR’s warehouse,
LESSOR is likewise hereby expressly authorized and empowered
by LESSEE to dispose of said property/properties in a public sale
through a Notary Public of LESSOR’s choice and to apply the
proceeds thereof to whatever liability and/or indebtedness
LESSEE may have to LESSOR plus reasonable expenses for the
same, including storage fees, and the balance, if any, shall be
turned over to LESSEE; that LESSEE hereby expressly agrees
that any or all acts performed by LESSOR, his authorized agents,
employees and/or representatives under the provisions of this
Section may not be the subject of any petition for a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction or Mandatory Injunction in court, and
that LESSOR and/or his authorized agents, employees, and/or
representatives shall be free from any civil and/or criminal
liability or responsibility whatsoever therefor.
TERMINATION OF LEASE
26. Upon the automatic termination of this lease contract, as

the case may be, LESSEE shall immediately vacate and redeliver
physical possession of the leased premises, including the keys
apper-taining thereto, to LESSOR in good, clean and sanitary
condition, reasonable wear and tear excepted, devoid of all
occupants, equipment, furniture, articles, merchandise, etc.,
belonging to LESSEE or to any other person except those
belonging to LESSOR; that should LESSEE fail to comply with
this provision, LESSOR is hereby given the same rights and
power to proceed against LESSEE as expressly granted in the
immediately preceding section.
Private respondent failed to pay rentals despite several

demands by petitioner. As of 19 October 1992 the
arrearages amounted to P8,608,284.66. Admittedly, non-
payment of rentals constituted breach of their contract;
thus, pursuant to the express authority granted petitioner
under the above-quoted Secs. 25 and 26 of the lease
agreement, petitioner on 31 October 1992 repossessed the

leased premises, inventoried the movable properties found
within and owned by private
644

Appeals
respondent and scheduled public auction for the sale of the

movables on 19 August 1993 with notice to private
respondent.
On 26 November 1992 private respondent filed with the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City a complaint
against petitioner for forcible entry with damages and a
prayer for a temporary 2
restraining order and/or writ of
preliminary injunction. The case was raffled to Branch 40
presided over by Judge Guillermo L. Loja, Jr. who issued a
temporary restraining order enjoining petitioner from
selling private respondent’s properties at a public auction.
On 9 December 1992 Judge Loja inhibited himself from
trying the case and directed its transfer to Branch 34
presided over by Judge Joselito SD Generoso. Soon after,
petitioner filed an urgent motion for the inhibition of Judge
Generoso and the immediate reraffle of the case arguing
that the summary transfer of the case to Judge Generoso
was irregular as it was not done by raffle.
The motion was granted and the case went to Branch 36
presided over by Judge Francisco D. Villanueva.
Thereafter, on 22 December 1992, at the continuation of
the hearing on the issuance of a writ preliminary
mandatory injunction, the parties agreed, among others, on
the following: (a) private respondent would deposit with the
Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank in the name of
the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 36, the amount of
P8,000,000.00 to guarantee the payment of its back rentals;
(b) petitioner would defer the sale of the personal
properties of the Westin Seafood Market, Inc., until a final
settlement of the case had been arrived at; (c) petitioner
shall allow private respondent to retrieve all the perishable
goods from inside the leased premises like frozen meat,
vegetables and fish, all properly receipted for; (d) petitioner
shall allow three (3) maintenance personnel of private
respondent to enter the premises at reasonable working
hours to maintain the restaurant equipment; and (e) the
parties
__________________
2 Civil Case No. 6589, “Westin Seafood Market, Inc. v. Progressive

Development Corporation, et al.”
645
VOL. 301, JANUARY 22, 1999 645

Appeals
shall negotiate for the restoration of the premises to

private respondent, and if no settlement be arrived at on or
before January 8, 1993, the hearing on the merits of the
case shall proceed and the disposition of the amount
deposited representing the rental arrearages shall be left to
the discretion of the court.
This agreement was incorporated3
in the order of the
court dated 22 December 1992 which in effect terminated
for all intents and purposes the incident on the issuance of
a preliminary writ of injunction.
Private respondent did not comply with its undertaking
to deposit with the designated bank the amount
representing its back rentals. Instead, with the forcible
entry case still pending with the MeTC, private respondent
instituted on 9 June 1993 another action for damages
against petitioner with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City. The case was raffled4
to Branch 101 presided over by
Judge Pedro T. Santiago.
Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the damage suit on
the ground of litis pendencia and forum shopping. On 2
July 1993, instead of ruling on the motion, Judge Santiago
issued an order archiving the case pending the outcome of
the forcible entry case being heard at the MeTC for the
reason that “the damages is (sic) principally anchored on
whether or not the defendants5
(petitioner herein) have
committed forcible entry.” On 2 August 1993 petitioner
moved for reconsideration of the order and reiterated its
motion to dismiss the suit for damages.
Before petitioner’s motion to dismiss could be resolved,
private respondent filed with the RTC on 18 August 1993
an amended complaint for damages. On 14 September 1993
it also filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for the Issuance of a
Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for the Grant of a
__________________
3 Records, Court of Appeals, p. 120.
4 Civil Case No. Q-93-16409, “Westin Seafood Market, Inc. v. PDC, et

al.”
5 Rollo, p. 68.
646

Appeals
Preliminary Prohibitory and Preliminary Mandatory

Injunction. On the very same day, Judge Santiago issued
an order (a) denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss, (b)
admitting private respondent’s amended complaint, and (c)
granting private respondent’s application for a temporary
restraining order against petitioner.
Thus, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a special
civil action for certiorari and prohibition on the ground that
Judge Santiago acted in excess of his jurisdiction and/or
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction in admitting the amended complaint of private
respondent and issuing a restraining order against
petitioner; in allowing private respondent to engage in
forum-shopping; and, taking cognizance 6
of the action for
damages despite lack of jurisdiction.
But the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition due to
the failure of petitioner to file a motion for reconsideration
of Judge Santiago’s order of 14 September 1993 which, it
explained, was a prerequisite to the institution of a petition
for certiorari and prohibition. It also found that the
elements of litis pendencia were lacking to justify the
dismissal of the action for damages with the RTC because
despite the pendency of the forcible entry case with the
MeTC the only damages recoverable thereat were those
caused by the loss of the use and occupation of the property
and not the kind of damages being claimed before the RTC
which had no direct relation to loss of material possession.
It clarified that since the damages prayed for in the
amended complaint with the RTC were those caused by the
alleged high-handed manner with which petitioner
reacquired possession of the leased premises and the sale of
private respondent’s movables found therein, the RTC and 7
not the MeTC had jurisdiction over the action of damages.
_________________
6 CA-G.R. No. SP Case No. 32199; Rollo, pp. 61-62.

7 Id., p. 63.
647
VOL. 301, JANUARY 22, 1999 647

Appeals
Petitioner, aggrieved by the decision of the appellate court,

filed the instant petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court alleging that it erred in (a)
finding that petitioner failed to avail of its plain, speedy
and adequate remedy of a prior motion for reconsideration
with the RTC; (b) ruling that the trial judge did not act
with grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of the
action for damages and injunction despite the pendency of
the forcible entry case with the MeTC; and, (c) ruling that
private respondent did not commit forum shopping since
the causes of action before the RTC and MeTC were not
identical with each other.
There is merit in the petition. While generally a motion
for reconsideration must first be filed before resorting to
certiorari in order to give the lower 8court an opportunity to
correct the errors imputed to it this rule admits of
exceptions and is not intended to be 9 applied without
considering the circumstances of the case. The filing of the
motion for reconsideration before availing of the remedy of
certiorari is not
10
sine qua non when the issue raised is one
purely of law,11 or where the error is patent or the disputed
order is void, or the questions raised on certiorari are the
same as those already squarely presented to and passed
upon by the lower court.
In its motion for dismissal of the action for damages
with the RTC petitioner raised the ground that another
action for forcible entry was pending at the MeTC between
the same parties involving the same matter and cause of
action. Outrightly rejected by the RTC, the same issue was
elevated by petitioner on certiorari before the Court of
Appeals. Clearly, under the prevailing circumstance, any
motion for reconsid-
_________________
8 D.C. Crystal v. Laya, G.R. No. 53597, 28 February 1989, 170 SCRA
734.
9 Bache & Co. (Phil.), Inc. v. Ruiz, No. L-32409, 27 February 1971, 37
SCRA 823.
10 Central Bank v. Cloribel, No. L-26971, 11 April 1972, 44 SCRA 307.
11 NEA v. Court of Appeals, No. L-32490, 29 December 1983, 126 SCRA
394.
648

Appeals
eration of12
the trial court would have been a pointless
exercise.
We now turn to the issue of whether an action for
damages filed with the Regional Trial Court by the lessee
against the lessor should be dismissed on the ground of
pendency of another action for forcible entry and damages
earlier filed by the same lessee against the same lessor
before the Metropolitan Trial Court.
Section 1 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides that
any person deprived of the possession of any land or
building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth,
or against whom the possession of any land or building is
unlawfully withheld, may bring an action in the proper
Municipal Trial Court against the person or persons
unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession, together
with damages and costs. The mandate under this rule is
categorical: that all cases for forcible entry or unlawful
detainer shall be filed before the Municipal Trial Court
which shall include not only the plea for restoration of
possession but also all claims for damages and costs arising
therefrom. Otherwise expressed, no claim for damages
arising out of forcible entry or unlawful detainer may be
filed separately and independently of the claim for
restoration of possession.
This is consistent with the principle laid down in Sec. 1,
par. (e), of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court which states that
the pendency of another action between the same parties
for the same cause is a ground for dismissal of an action.
Res adjudicata requires that there must be between the
action sought to be dismissed and the other action the
following elements: (a) identity of parties or at least such as
representing the same interest in both actions; (b) identity
of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being
founded on the same facts; and, (c) the identity in the two
(2) preceding particulars should be such that any judgment
which may be rendered on
___________________
12 Corro v. Lising, G.R. No. 69899, 15 July 1985, 137 SCRA 545.
649
VOL. 301, JANUARY 22, 1999 649

Appeals
the other action will, regardless of which party is

successful, amount
13
to res adjudicata in the action under
consideration.
It is likewise basic under Sec. 3 of Rule 2 of the Revised
Rules of Court, as amended, that a party may not institute
more than one suit for a single cause of action. Under Sec.
4 of the same Rule, if two or more suits are instituted on
the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a
judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a
ground for the dismissal of the other or others. “Cause of
action” is defined by Sec. 2 of Rule 2 as the act of omission
14
by which a party violates a right of another. These
premises obtaining, there is no question at all that private
respondent’s cause of action in the forcible entry case and
in the suit for damages is the alleged illegal retaking of
possession of the leased premises by the lessor, petitioner
herein, from which all legal reliefs arise. Simply stated, the
restoration of possession and demand for actual damages in
the case before the MeTC and the demand for damages
with the RTC both arise from the same cause of action, i.e.,
the forcible entry by petitioner into the leased premises.
A comparative study of the two (2) complaints filed by
private respondent against petitioner before the two (2)
trial courts shows that not only are the elements of res
adjudicata present, at least insofar as the claim for actual
and compensatory damages is concerned, but also that the
claim for damages—moral and exemplary in addition to
actual and compensatory—constitutes splitting a single
cause of action. Since this runs counter to the rule against
multiplicity of suits, the dismissal of the second action
becomes imperative.
The complaint for forcible entry contains the following
pertinent allegations—
________________
13 Municipality of Hagonoy v. Sec. of Agriculture and Natural

Resources, No. L-27595, 26 October 1976, 73 SCRA 507; Lopez v.
Villaruel, G.R. No. 54323, 19 August 1988, 164 SCRA 616.
14 As amended by the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
650


Appeals
2.01 On 02 January 1989, plaintiff entered into a

contract of lease with defendant PDC over a
property designated as Ground Floor, Seafood
Market (hereinafter “Subject Premises”) situated at
the corner of EDSA corner MacArthur Street,
Araneta Center, Cubao, Quezon City, for a period of
ten (10) years from 02 January 1989 to 30 April
1998.
2.02 Immediately after having acquired actual physical
possession of the Subject Premises, plaintiff
established and now operates thereon the now
famous Seafood Market Restaurant. Since then,
plaintiff had been in actual, continuous, and
peaceful physical possession of the Subject
Premises until 31 October 1992.
xxxx
3.02 Plaintiff, being the lessee of the Subject Premises,

is entitled to the peaceful occupation and enjoyment
of the Subject Premises to the exclusion of all
others, including defendants herein.
3.03 Defendants’ resort to strong arms tactics to forcibly
wrest possession of the Subject Premises from
plaintiff and maintain possession thereof through
the use of force, threat, strategy and intimidation
by the use of superior number of men and arms
amounts to the taking of the law into their own
hands.
3.04 Thus, defendants’ act of unlawfully evicting out
plaintiff from the Subject Premises it is leasing
from defendant PDC and depriving it of possession
thereof through the use of force, threat, strategy
and intimidation should be condemned and
declared illegal for being contrary to public order
and policy.
3.05 Consequently, defendants should be enjoined from
continuing with their illegal acts and be ordered to
vacate the Subject Premises and restore possession
thereof, together with its contents, to plaintiff.
xxxx
4.07 Considering that defendants’ act of forcibly

grabbing possession of the Subject Premises from
plaintiff is illegal and null and void, defendant
should be adjudged liable to plaintiff for all the
aforedescribed damages which plaintiff incurred as

a result thereof.
The amended complaint for damages filed by private

respondent alleges basically the same factual
circumstances and issues as bases for the relief prayed for,
to wit:
651
VOL. 301, JANUARY 22, 1999 651

Appeals
4. On May 28, 1991, plaintiff and defendant PDC

entered into a Contract of Lease for a period of ten
years or from January 2, 1989 up to April 30, 1998
over a property designated as Ground Floor,
Seafood Market (hereinafter referred to as Subject
Premises) situated at the corner of EDSA corner
McArthur Street, Araneta Center, Cubao, Quezon
City. A copy of the lease contract is attached hereto
as Annex “A.”
5. Immediately thereafter, plaintiff took over actual
physical possession of Subject Premises, and
established thereon the now famous “Seafood
Market Restaurant.”
xxxx
7. On October 31, 1992 at around 8:30 p.m., defendant

PDC, without the benefit of any writ of possession
or any lawful court order and with the aid of
approximately forty (40) armed security guards and
policemen under the supervision of defendant
Tejam, forcibly entered the subject premises
through force, intimidation, threats and stealth and
relying on brute force and in a thunderboltish
manner and against plaintiff’s will,
unceremoniously drew away all of plaintiff’s men
out of the subject premises, thereby depriving
herein plaintiff of its actual, physical and natural
possession of the subject premises. The illegal,
high-handed manner and gestapo like take-over by
defendants of subject premises is more particularly
described as follows: x x x
8. To date, defendants continue to illegally possess
and hold the Subject Premises, including all the
multi-million improvements, fixtures and
equipment therein owned by plaintiff, all to the

damage and prejudice of plaintiff. The actuations of
defendants constitute an unlawful appropriation,
seizure and taking of property against the will and
consent of plaintiff. Worse, defendants are
threatening to sell at public auction and without
the consent of plaintiff and without lawful
authority, the multi-million fixtures and equipment
of plaintiff and at prices way below the market
value thereof. Plaintiff hereby attaches as Annex
“B” the letter from defendants dated August 6, 1993
addressed to plaintiff, informing the latter that the
former intends to sell at an auction on August 19,
1993 at 2:00 p.m. properties of the plaintiff
presently in defendants’ possession.
xxxx
12. Defendant’s unlawful takeover of the premises
constitutes a violation of its obligation under Art.
1654 of the New Civil Code requiring the lessor to
maintain the lessee in peaceful and adequate
enjoyment of the lease for the entire duration of the
con-
652

Appeals
tract. Hence, plaintiff has filed the present suit for

the recovery of damages under Art. 1659 of the New
Civil Code x x x x
Restated in its bare essentials, the forcible entry case has

one cause of action, namely, the alleged unlawful entry by
petitioner into the leased premises out of which three (3)
reliefs (denominated by private respondent as its causes of
action) arose: (a) the restoration by the lessor (petitioner
herein) of the possession of the leased premises to the
lessee; (b) the claim for actual damages due to the losses
suffered by private respondent such as the deterioration of
perishable foodstuffs stored inside the premises and the
deprivation of the use of the premises causing loss of
expected profits; and, (c) the claim for attorney’s fees and
costs of suit.
On the other hand, the complaint for damages prays for
a monetary award consisting of (a) moral damages of
P500,000.00 and exemplary damages of another

P500,000.00; (b) actual damages of P20,000,000.00 and
compensatory damages of P1,000,000.00 representing
unrealized profits; and, (c) P200,000.00 for attorney’s fees
and costs, all based on the alleged forcible takeover of the
leased premises by petitioner. Since actual and
compensatory damages were already prayed for in the
forcible entry case before the MeTC, it is obvious that this
cannot be relitigated in the damage suit before the RTC by
reason of res adjudicata.
The other claims for moral and exemplary damages
cannot also succeed considering that these sprung from the
main incident being heard before the MeTC. Jurisprudence
is unequivocal that when a single delict or wrong is
committed—like the unlawful taking or detention of the
property of another—there is but one single cause of action
regardless of the number of rights that may have been
violated, and all such rights should be alleged in a 15single
complaint as constituting one single cause of action. In a
forcible entry case, the real issue
_________________
15 Francisco, Vicente J., The Revised Rules of Court, Annotated and

Commented, Vol. I, 1973 Ed., p. 173, citing Rubio v. Villanueva, 53 Phil.
927.
653
VOL. 301, JANUARY 22, 1999 653

Appeals
is the physical possession of the real property. The question

of damages is merely secondary or incidental, so much so
that the amount thereof does not affect the jurisdiction of
the court. In other words, the unlawful act of a deforciant
in taking possession of a piece of land by means of force
and intimidation against the rights of the party actually in
possession thereof is a delict or wrong, or a cause of action
that gives rise to two (2) remedies, namely, the recovery of
possession and recovery of damages arising from the loss of
possession, but only to one action. For obvious reasons,
both remedies cannot be the subject of two (2) separate and
independent actions, one for recovery of possession only,
and the other, for the recovery of damages. That would
inevitably lead 16to what is termed in law17
as splitting up a
cause of action. In David v. de la Cruz we observed—
Herein tenants have but one cause of action against their

landlord, their illegal ejectment or removal from their
landholdings, which cause of action however entitles them to two
(2) claims or remedies—for reinstatement and damages. As both
claims arise from the same cause of action, they should be alleged
in a single complaint.
A claim cannot be divided in such a way that a part of the

amount of damages18
may be recovered in one
19
case and the
rest, in another. In Bachrach v. Icarangal we explained
that the rule was aimed at preventing repeated litigations
between the same parties in regard to the same subject of
the controversy and to protect the defendant from
unnecessary vexation. Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et
eadem causa.
What then is the effect of the dismissal of the other
action? Since the rule is that all such rights should be
alleged in a
__________________
16 Ginto v. Medina, G.R. No. 9006-R, 7 October 1953; 50 O.G. 199-200.

17 No. L-11656, 18 April 1958; 54 O.G. 8073.
18 See Note 15, citing Li Seng Giap v. Tam Meng, 37 O.G. 2128.
19 68 Phil. 287 (1939).
654

Appeals
single complaint, it goes without saying that those not

therein included cannot be the subject 20
of subsequent
complaints for they are barred forever. If a suit is brought
for a part of a claim, a judgment obtained in that action
precludes the plaintiff from bringing a second action for the
residue of the claim, notwithstanding that the second form
of action is not identical with the first or different grounds
for relief are set for the second suit. This principle not only
embraces what was actually determined, but also extends
to every 21matter which the parties might have litigated in
the case. This is why the legal basis upon which private
respondent anchored its second claim for damages, i.e., 22
Art.
1659 in relation to Art. 1654 of the Civil Code, not
otherwise raised and cited by private respondent in the
forcible entry case, cannot be used as justification for the
second suit for damages. We note, not without some degree
of displeasure, that by filing a second suit for damages,

private respondent was not only able to press a claim for
moral and exemplary damages which by its failure to allege
the same in its suit before the MeTC foreclosed its right to
sue on it, but it was also able to obtain from the RTC, by
way of another temporary restraining order, a second
reprieve from an impending public auction sale of its
movables which it could not anymore secure from the
MeTC before which the matter of the issuance of a
preliminary writ of injunction was already closed.
The foregoing discussions provide sufficient basis to
petitioner’s charge that private respondent and its counsel
in the
___________________
20 I Moran, Rules of Court, 2nd Ed., p. 14.

21 Francisco, Vicente J., ibid, p. 173, citing 1 Am. Jur., 480-481.
22 Art. 1659. If the lessor or the lessee should not comply with the
obligations set forth in Articles 1654 and 1657, the aggrieved party may
ask for rescission of the contract and indemnification for damages, or only
the latter, allowing the contract to remain in force. Art. 1654.—The lessor
is obliged x x x (3) To maintain the lessee in the peaceful and adequate
enjoyment of the lease for the entire duration of the contract.
655
VOL. 301, JANUARY 22, 1999 655

Appeals
trial courts committed forum-shopping.

23
In Crisostomo v.
Securities and Exchange Commission we ruled—
There is forum-shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse

opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other
than by appeal or certiorari) in another. The principle applies x x
x with respect to suits filed in the courts x x x in connection with
litigations commenced in the court x x x in anticipation of an
unfavorable x x x ruling and a favorable case where the court in
which the second suit was brought, has no jurisdiction.
This Court likewise elucidated in New Pangasinan

24
Review,
Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission that there is
forum-shopping when the actions involve the same
transactions, the same essential facts and circumstances.
The reason behind the proscription of forum shopping is
obvious. This unnecessarily burdens our courts with heavy
caseloads, unduly taxes the manpower and financial

resources of the judiciary and trifles with and mocks our
judicial processes, thereby adversely affecting the efficient
administration of justice. This condemnable
25
conduct has
prompted the Court to issue circulars ordering among
others that a violation thereof shall be cause for the
dismissal of the case or cases without prejudice to the
taking of appropriate action against the counsel or party
concerned.
The records ineluctably show that the complaint lodged
by private respondent with the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City contained no certification of non-forum
shopping. When petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the
case raising among others the ground of forum-shopping it
pointed out the absence of the required certification. The
amended complaint, as well as the second and third
amended complaints, attempted
__________________
23 G.R. Nos. 89095 and 89555, 6 November 1989, 179 SCRA 147.
24 G.R. No. 77356, 15 July 1991, 199 SCRA 212.
25 See Circular No. 28-91 of 4 September 1991 and its revision dated 8
February 1994, and Adm. Circular No. 04-94 dated 8 February 1994.
656

Appeals
to rectify the error by invariably stating that there was no

other action pending between the parties involving the
same causes of action although there was actually a
forcible entry case pending before the MTC of Quezon City.
By its admission of a pending forcible entry case, it is
obvious that private respondent was indulging in forum
shopping. While private respondent conveniently failed to
inform the RTC that it had likewise sought damages in the
MTC on the basis of the same forcible entry, the fact
remains that it precisely did so, which stratagem was being
duplicated in the second case. This is a compelling reason
to dismiss the second case.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The
questioned Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 27
September 1995 and the Order of the Regional Trial Court
of Quezon City dated 24 September 1993 are REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City
is directed to dismiss Civil Case No. Q-93-16409, “Westin

Seafood Market, Inc. v. Progressive Development
Corporation, et al.,” and the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Quezon City to proceed with the proper disposition of Civil
Case No. 6589, “Westin Seafood Market, Inc. v. Progressive
Development Corporation, et al.,” with dispatch considering
the summary nature of the case. Treble costs against
private respondent.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, Mendoza, Quisumbing and Buena, JJ.,

concur.
Petition granted. Judgment and order reversed and set

aside.
Notes.—The policy of avoiding multiplicity of suits

which underscores the rule on permissive joinder of causes
of action is addressed to suits that are intimately related
and also present interwoven and dependent issues which
can be most expeditiously and comprehensively settled by
having just one judicial proceeding. (Republic vs.
Hernandez, 253 SCRA 509 [1996])
657
VOL. 301, JANUARY 22, 1999 657

Adzuara vs. Court of Appeals
Like res judicata as a doctrine, litis pendentia is a sanction

of public policy against multiplicity of suits. (Andresons
Group, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 423 [1997])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

4.progressive Development Corporation, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 637, January 22, 1999

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4.progressive Development Corporation, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 637, January 22, 1999

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

4.progressive Development Corporation, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 637, January 22, 1999

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2/27/22, 11:04 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 301

VOL. 301, JANUARY 22, 1999 637

VOL. 301, JANUARY 22, 1999 637

PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC.,

Actions; Certiorari; Motions for Reconsideration; Pleadings

638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Progressive Development Corporation, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

Same; Same; Same; Same; Where in an action for damages

VOL. 301, JANUARY 22, 1999 639

Progressive Development Corporation, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

same interest in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and

640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Progressive Development Corporation, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

VOL. 301, JANUARY 22, 1999 641

Progressive Development Corporation, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

May the lessee which instituted before the Metropolitan

642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

by varying the form of action or adopting a different

25. LESSEE hereby agrees that all the provisions contained in

1 Peñalosa v. Tuason, 22 Phil. 303 (1912).

VOL. 301, JANUARY 22, 1999 643

consignors and/or to any other persons and to place the same in

26. Upon the automatic termination of this lease contract, as

Private respondent failed to pay rentals despite several

agreement, petitioner on 31 October 1992 repossessed the

644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

respondent and scheduled public auction for the sale of the

2 Civil Case No. 6589, “Westin Seafood Market, Inc. v. Progressive

VOL. 301, JANUARY 22, 1999 645

shall negotiate for the restoration of the premises to

3 Records, Court of Appeals, p. 120.

4 Civil Case No. Q-93-16409, “Westin Seafood Market, Inc. v. PDC, et

646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Preliminary Prohibitory and Preliminary Mandatory

6 CA-G.R. No. SP Case No. 32199; Rollo, pp. 61-62.

VOL. 301, JANUARY 22, 1999 647

Petitioner, aggrieved by the decision of the appellate court,

648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 301, JANUARY 22, 1999 649

the other action will, regardless of which party is

13 Municipality of Hagonoy v. Sec. of Agriculture and Natural

650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Progressive Development Corporation, Inc. vs. Court of

2.01 On 02 January 1989, plaintiff entered into a

3.02 Plaintiff, being the lessee of the Subject Premises,

4.07 Considering that defendants’ act of forcibly

aforedescribed damages which plaintiff incurred as

The amended complaint for damages filed by private

VOL. 301, JANUARY 22, 1999 651

4. On May 28, 1991, plaintiff and defendant PDC

7. On October 31, 1992 at around 8:30 p.m., defendant

equipment therein owned by plaintiff, all to the

652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

tract. Hence, plaintiff has filed the present suit for

Restated in its bare essentials, the forcible entry case has

P500,000.00 and exemplary damages of another

15 Francisco, Vicente J., The Revised Rules of Court, Annotated and