G.R. No. 190983 , July 29, 2015
SURENDRA GOBINDRAM DASWANI, Petitioner, vs. BANCO DE ORO UNIVERSAL BANK and REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MAKATI CITY, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Surendra Gobindram Daswani filed a complaint (Civil Case No. 04-1075) on September 17, 2004, against respondent Banco De Oro Universal Bank (BDO) before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 133 (RTC Br. 133), seeking the declaration of nullity of foreclosure proceedings and cancellation of the certificate of sale’s registration, with damages. He alleged that he and two others mortgaged condominium units to secure loans from Dao Heng Bank, which BDO later acquired. After default, BDO extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage. Daswani argued BDO was not an original party to the loan and mortgage agreement. On August 25, 2005, he amended his complaint to include a prayer for cancellation of BDO’s new certificates of title and issuance of new ones in his name, converting the action into a reconveyance claim.
On March 20, 2009, RTC Br. 133 dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice for failure to pay additional docket fees required for the real action. Instead of filing a motion for reconsideration, Daswani filed a motion for leave to admit his amended complaint on June 15, 2009, claiming payment of fees but without presenting a receipt. BDO opposed, arguing the dismissal order had become final. On August 19, 2009, Daswani filed a motion to withdraw his amended complaint, stating he would re-file it.
On September 16, 2009, Daswani re-filed the complaint (Civil Case No. 09-843) before RTC Makati, Branch 61 (RTC Br. 61). BDO moved to dismiss, alleging forum shopping, misrepresentation in the certification against forum shopping, and failure to pay docket fees. On November 20, 2009, RTC Br. 61 granted the motion to dismiss based on litis pendentia due to the pending first case. Daswani’s motion for reconsideration was denied on January 15, 2010. Meanwhile, on February 2, 2010, RTC Br. 133 granted Daswani’s motion to withdraw the amended complaint in the first case.

ISSUE

Whether Daswani committed forum shopping when he re-filed his complaint with RTC Br. 61, warranting dismissal for litis pendentia.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, ruling that Daswani did not commit forum shopping.
The Court held that forum shopping requires a willful and deliberate act of filing multiple cases involving the same parties, cause of action, and issues to secure a favorable ruling. The elements of litis pendentia—identity of parties, rights asserted, relief prayed for, and facts—must concur, and a judgment in one case must amount to res judicata in the other. Here, Daswani re-filed the complaint in good faith, believing the first case was dismissed without prejudice and could not be revived. His motion to withdraw indicated acknowledgment of the dismissal’s finality. The Court found no intentional violation, as the first case was dismissed without prejudice, and Daswani’s actions were not malicious. Thus, the dismissal of the second complaint based on forum shopping was improper.
The Court also noted that the petition, raising pure questions of law, was properly brought under Rule 45 in relation to Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.