CHUA V. METROBANK, ET. AL.  RTC Branch 195 granted the consolidation of cases.
The respondents filed an
G.R. No. 182311 | Chico-Nazario | Aug. 19, 2009 | Cause of Action (Rule 2)
FACTS
 After obtaining a P4 million loan secured by REM on parcels of land,
petitioners Chua, et. al. were given an open credit line by respondent
Metrobank. Petitioners thus obtained other loans from Metrobank.
 Petitioners failed to pay their obligation. The lawyers of Metrobank demanded
that petitioners settle their liabilities; however, the latter still failed.
 Respondent Metrobank sought to extrajudicially foreclose the REM
constituted on the lands.
1st CIVIL CASE:
 Petitioner Chua filed before RTC Parañaque Branch 257 a Complaint for
Injunction with Prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order (TRO),
Preliminary Injunction and Damages against respondents Atty. Celestra,
docketed as Civil Case No. CV-01-0207.
 RTC Branch 257 issued a TRO enjoining respondents Metrobank and
Atty. Celestra from conducting the auction sale.
 After the expiration of the TRO, respondent Atty. Celestra reset the auction
sale. The auction sale proceeded on Nov. 8, 2001, and a Certificate of Sale
was accordingly issued.
 Petitioners filed with RTC-Branch 257 a Motion to Admit Amended Complaint
in Civil Case No. CV-01-0207, impleading as additional defendant the
incumbent Register of Deeds of Parañaque City. They alleged that the
Certificate of Sale was falsified since no actual sale took place.
o They also sought the issuance of TRO/WPI to enjoin Atty. Celestra
from proceeding with the foreclosure sale.
o RTC Branch 257 denied the application for injunction, the same
being moot and academic. Petitioners filed an MR which was denied.
They filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA which was also
denied. The SC dismissed the appeal of respondents with finality.
2nd CIVIL CASE:
 Petitioners 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,
namely, Atty. Antonio Viray, Atty. Ramon Miranda and Atty. Pompeyo
Maynigo. The Complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. CV-05-0402.
o They sought award of actual, moral, and exemplary damages
against respondents for making it appear that an auction sale of the
took place, as a result of which, petitioner Chua was prevented from
realizing a profit of P70 million from the intended sale.
Motion to Consolidate
 Petitioners filed with RTC-Branch 195 a Motion to Consolidate, seeking the
consolidation of Civil Case No. CV-05-0402, the action for damages pending
before said court, with Civil Case No. CV-01-0207, the injunction case.
 Respondents filed an Opposition to Motion to Consolidate with Prayer for
Sanctions on the ground of forum shopping.
MR raising the ground of forum shopping.
o RTC Branch 258 granted the MR of respondents and dismissed the
case due to forum shopping.
o CA affirmed and observed that the cause of action of the two cases
was the same, i.e. the feigned auction sale. The judgment in either
case would result in res judicata.
ISSUE #1: W/N THE SUCCESSIVE FILING OF THE TWO CIVIL CASES AMOUNTED
TO FORUM SHOPPING – YES
 The proscription against forum shopping is found in Section 5, Rule 7 of the
1997 Rules of Court.
 Forum shopping can be committed in three ways:
(1) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same
prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet (where the ground for
dismissal is litis pendentia);
(2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same
prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved (where the ground for
dismissal is res judicata); and
(3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action, but with different
prayers (splitting of causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also
either litis pendentia or res judicata).
IN THIS CASE, petitioners committed forum shopping by filing multiple cases based
on the same cause of action, although with different prayers.
 They also failed to state in the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping, attached
to their Verified Complaint in Civil Case No. CV-05-0402 before RTC-Branch
195, the existence of Civil Case No. CV-01-0207 before RTC-Branch 258.
Splitting of a Single Cause of Action
 Sections 3 and 4, Rule 2 proscribe the splitting of a single cause of action.
 Forum shopping occurs although the actions seem to be different, when it can
be seen that there is a splitting of a cause of action.
 It is true that a single act or omission can violate various rights at the
same time, as when the act constitutes juridically a violation of several
separate and distinct legal obligations.
o However, where there is only one delict or wrong, there is but a
single cause of action regardless of the number of rights that
may have been violated belonging to one person.
 Petitioner would like to make it appear that the first civil case was solely
concerned with the nullification of the auction sale while the second civil case
was a totally separate claim for damages.
o HOWEVER, the Court observed that the damages being claimed
by petitioners were also occasioned by the supposed fictitious
foreclosure sale. Both cases 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.
 The rule against splitting a cause of action is intended to prevent
repeated litigation between the same parties in regard to the same
subject of controversy, to protect the defendant from unnecessary
vexation; and to avoid the costs and expenses incident to numerous
 suits. It comes from the old maxim nemo debet bis vexari, pro una et
eadem causa (no man shall be twice vexed for one and the same cause).

OTHER ISSUES:
 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.
o On the other hand, the damages in Civil Case No. CV-05-0402,
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.
o Yet, it is worthy to note that petitioners quoted closely similar values
for the subject properties in both cases 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.
 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.
o However, if the forum shopping is willful and deliberate, both (or all,
if there are more than two) actions shall be dismissed with
prejudice.
o IN THIS CASE, petitioners did not deliberately file Civil Case No. CV-
05-0402 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 Civil Case No. CV-05-0402 is dismissed
and the hearing of Civil Case No. CV-01-0207 before RTC-Branch
258 will be continued.

PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 45 DENIED.