CASE DIGEST : Umale v. Canoga Park Development Corporation

 G.R. No. 167246               July 20, 2011

GEORGE LEONARD S. UMALE, Petitioner,

vs.

CANOGA PARK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

FACTS: In January 4, 2000, the parties entered into a Contract of Lease. On October 10, 2000, before the lease contract expired, the respondent filed an unlawful detainer case against the petitioner before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC)-Branch 68, Pasig City. The MTC-Branch 68 decided the ejectment case in favor of the respondent. On appeal, the RTC-Branch 155, Pasig City affirmed in toto the MTC-Branch 68 decision. The case, however, was re-raffled to the RTC-Branch 267, Pasig City because the Presiding Judge of the RTC-Branch 155, upon motion, inhibited himself from resolving the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. The RTC-Branch 267 granted the petitioner’s motion, thereby reversing and setting aside the MTC-Branch 68 decision. During the pendency of the petition for review, the respondent filed on May 3, 2002 another case for unlawful detainer against the petitioner before the MTC-Branch 71, Pasig City. On December 4, 2002, the MTC-Branch 71 rendered a decision in favor of the respondent. On appeal, the RTC-Branch 68 reversed and set aside the decision of the MTC-Branch 71, and dismissed Civil Case No. 9210 on the ground of litis pendentia. Aggrieved by the reversal, the respondent filed a Petition for Review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court with the CA. On August 20, 2004, the CA nullified and set aside the assailed decision of the RTC-Branch 68, and ruled that there was no litis pendentia because the two civil cases have different causes of action. Hence this petition.

ISSUE: WON there is litis Pendentia.

HELD: litis pendentia refers to a situation where two actions are pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, so that one of them becomes unnecessary and vexatious. There is litis Pendentia if there is 1. Identities of the parties 2. Identities of the of the cause of action 3. identity between the two actions should be such that any judgment that may be rendered in one case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other. SC ruled that Civil Case Nos. 8084 and 9210 involve different causes of action. There are 2 tests in determining to ascertain whether two suits relate to a single or common cause of action. 1. Same Evidence Test, 2. whether the defenses in one case may be used to substantiate the complaint in the other, 3. whether the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of the filing of the first complaint. The third one is especially applicable to the present case and to which SC answer in the negative because the first case is about violation of the Lease agreement while the second case was for the expiration of the Lease agreement.