Saura v. Saura

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 313 01/02/2019, 10(34 PM
VOL. 313, SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 465

Saura vs. Saura, Jr.
*
G.R. No. 136159. September 1, 1999.
MACRINA S. SAURA, AMELITA S. SAURA, ROMEO S.

SAURA, and VILLA GOVERNOR FORBES, INC.,
petitioners, vs. RAMON G. SAURA, JR., and
CARMENCITA S. MILLAN, respondents.
Remedial Law; Jurisdiction; Securities and Exchange

Commission; Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law
and is determined by the allegations of the complaint irrespective of
whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims asserted
therein.·„To determine which body has jurisdiction over the
present controversy, we rely on the sound judicial principle that
jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and is
determined by the allegations of the complaint irrespective of
whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims asserted
therein.‰
Same; Same; Same; Two elements to determine the jurisdiction
of the Securities and Exchange Commission.·„The grant of
jurisdiction to the SEC must be viewed in the light of its nature and
function under the law. This jurisdiction is determined by a
concurrence of two elements: (1) the status or relationship of the
parties; and (2) the nature of the question that is the subject of their
controversy.‰ „The first element requires that the controversy must
arise out of intra-corporate or partnership relations between and
among stockholders, members, or associates; between any or all of
them and the corporation, partnership or association of which they
are stockholders, members or associates, respectively; and between
such corporation, partnership or association and the State insofar
as it concerns their individual franchises. The second element
requires that the dispute among the parties be intrinsically
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168a97b81a2c84beaec003600fb002c009e/p/APE034/?username=Guest Page 1 of 15
connected with the regulation of the corporation, partnership or

association.‰
Same; Same; Same; The controversy is an ordinary civil
litigation beyond the ambit of the limited jurisdiction of the
Securities and Exchange Commission.·In the complaint filed with
the trial court, respondents Ramon, Jr. and Carmencita seek the
annulment of the sale to Sandalwood. Ultimately, the civil case with
the trial court is
_____________________
* FIRST DIVISION.
466
466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
directed against the buyer of the disputed property, which has no

intra-corporate relationship with respondents Ramon, Jr. and
Carmencita. Petitioners are only impleaded as necessary parties
being the officers of the seller-corporation. Hence, the controversy is
an ordinary civil litigation beyond the ambit of the limited
jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission. In the
present case, there is no necessity to resort to the expertise of the
SEC. Respon-dentsÊ complaint for annulment of the sale is an
ordinary civil action, beyond the jurisdiction of the SEC.
Same; Actions; Forum-Shopping; Forum-shopping exists where
the elements of litis pendentia are present, and where a final
judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other;
Requisites for forum-shopping to exist.·„Forum-shopping exists
where the elements of litis pendentia are present, and where a final
judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. Thus,
there is forum-shopping when, between an action pending before
this Court and another one, there exist: Â(a) identity of parties, or at
least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions,
(b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being
founded on the same facts, and (c) the identity of the two preceding
particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other action,

will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata
in the action under consideration; said requisites also constitutive
of the requisites for auter action pendant or lis pendens.Ê Another
case elucidates the consequence of forum-shopping: Â[W]here a
litigant sues the same party against whom another action or actions
for the alleged violation of the same right and the enforcement of
the same relief is/are still pending, the defense of litis pendentia in
one case is a bar to the others; and, a final judgment in one would
constitute res judicata and thus would cause the dismissal of the
rest.‰
Same; Same; Res Judicata; Elements of.·As held in the recent
case of Banaga vs. Court of Appeals,res judicata exists when all the
following elements are present: (a) the former judgment must be
final; (b) the court which rendered judgment had jurisdiction over
the parties and the subject matter; (c) it must be a judgment on the
merits; (d) and there must be between the first and second actions
identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action.
467
VOL. 313, SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 467

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

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

Reyes, Yee & Reyes Law Offices for petitioners.
Paras, Reynes, Manlapaz & Marapao for private
respondent Ramon G. Saura, Jr.
Carolina Esguerra-Ochoa for private respondent
Carmencita S. Millan.
PARDO, J.:
The petition for review on certiorari seeks to annul

1
and set
aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and2 the
resolution denying reconsideration of said decision. The
Court of Appeals upheld the jurisdiction of the regional
3
trial court over the case pending between the parties.
The antecedent facts are undisputed. They may be
related as follows:
The parties in this case are related to one another by
blood. They were the children of the late Ramon E. Saura,
Sr. Petitioner Macrina Saura is Ramon, Sr.Ês third wife. She
was joined by co-petitioners, her children by Ramon, Sr.,
Amelita Saura-Vergara and Romeo S. Saura, and Villa
Governor Forbes, Inc. (VGFI) a corporation
4
duly organized
and existing under Philippine laws. On the other hand,
respondents Ramon G. Saura, Jr. and Carmencita S. Millan
are the legitimate children of Ramon, Sr. by his first and
second wife, respectively.
_________________
1 In CA-G.R. SP No. 39557, promulgated on November 28, 1997,

Justice Vidallon-Magtolis, ponente, and Justices Montoya and Cosico,
concurring.
2 Resolution issued on October 29, 1998.
3 Docketed as Civil Case No. 95-73823.
4 Rollo,p. 71.
468

Respondents Ramon G. Saura, Jr., and Carmencita S.

Millan were the absolute owners of two parcels of land
located at Governor Forbes, Sampaloc, Manila, each
containing an area of seven hundred (700) square meters,
evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos.
135148 and 135149.
In 1979, respondentsÊ father, Ramon E. Saura, Sr.,
initiated the incorporation of Villa Governor Forbes, 5Inc.,
with his children, and third wife as stockholders. On
August 8, 1979, respondents executed a deed of exchange of
the two parcels of land for 23,750 shares of stocks of VGFI,
valued at P237,500.00. Though the property was appraised
by bank examiners to have a value of about P2,000,000.00,
respondentsÊ father gave it a valuation of only P310,000.00.
Of this amount, respondents Ramon, Jr. and Carmencita
were credited with P73,625.00 each as paid shares of stock.
The balance was made to appear as the contribution of

petitioners in the corporation: P42,625.00 for Amelita,
P42,635.00 for Romeo, and P19,375.00 for Macrina. Their
other siblings, namely, Norma T. Saura, Helen G. Saura
and Raymundo Y. Saura, were also assigned shares in the
amount of P19,375.00 each.
On August 29, 1979, the deed of exchange was
registered with the Register of Deeds of Manila resulting in
the cancellation of respondentsÊ certificates of title and the
issuance of TCT No. 135150 in the name of VGFI.
On March 6
25, 1986, respondents Ramon, Jr. and
Carmencita filed a complaint with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) against their father Ramon
E. Saura, Sr., his wife Macrina and their children Amelita
and Romeo, for annulment of subscription, recovery of
corporate assets and
_________________
5 The stockholders are Ramon G. Saura, Jr., Carmencita S. Millan,

Helen Saura Baldoria, Raymundo S. Saura, Norma Saura Cabrera,
Amelita S. Saura, Romeo S. Saura, and Macrina Saura, Rollo, p. 72.
6 Joined by their other siblings namely Helen Saura-Baldoria, Norma
Saura-Cabrera and Raymundo Y. Saura and by VGFI, docketed as SEC
Case No. 002968.
469
VOL. 313, SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 469

funds. During the pendency of the proceedings, on May 15,

1992, Ramon, Sr. died. 7
On October 29, 1990, the SEC panel of hearing officers
promulgated a decision approving a compromise agreement
between respondent Carmencita S. Millan and petitioners.
With respect to respondent Ramon G. Saura, Jr., the panel
of hearing officers dismissed the case upon finding that his
shares had been declared delinquent and subsequently sold
at public auction, making him not a stockholder of the
corporation. However, the SEC en banc reversed such
finding and remanded the case to the hearing panel for the
immediate resolution of the case.

Despite the pendency of the SEC case, on April 11, 1995,
petitioners sold the disputed real property to Sandalwood
Realty Development Corporation (Sandalwood) for a
consideration of P15,000,000.00. The sale was done without
the knowledge and consent of respondents Ramon, Jr., and
Carmencita. Eventually, the Register of Deeds of Manila
issued TCT No. 221008 to Sandalwood.
On May 11, 1995, respondents Ramon, Jr. and
Carmencita filed with the Regional Trial Court, Manila, a
civil case for annulment of sale, declaration of nullity of
deed of exchange, recovery of possession, cancellation of
title, accounting,
8
damages, with prayer for receivership ex
parte.
On August 26, 1995, petitioners Macrina, Amelita and
Romeo filed with the trial court a motion to dismiss the
complaint based on: (1) forum shopping; (2) res judicata; (3)
prescription; (4) lack of jurisdiction; (5) 9lack of cause of
action; (6) estoppel; and (7) litis pendentia.
On September 8, 1995, the trial court denied the motion
to dismiss and held that: (1) there was no forum shopping
because the cases pending with the SEC and with the
regional
___________________
7 Composed by Felipe S. Tongco, Juanito B. Almosa, Jr., and Trinidad

L. Dabay.
8 Docketed as Civil Case No. 95-73823.
9 Rollo, pp. 97-112.
470

trial court involved different issues; (2) the civil case was
not barred by res judicata since the judgment on
compromise of the SEC did not result in a complete and
final settlement of the claims which the parties may have
against each other; (3) there was no litis pendentia because
no identity of parties and issues exists; and (4) Sandalwood
Realty Development CorporationÊs claim that respondents

were not the real party in interest was without basis
because they stand to benefit or be injured by the result of
the suit. However, the court deferred the resolution of the
issue of prescription and lack of cause of action until after
trial.
On December 11, 1995, the trial court denied petitionersÊ
separate motions for reconsideration. On January 26, 1996,
petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via
certiorari contending that the trial court gravely erred
when it denied the motion to dismiss. They insist that the
Securities and Exchange Commission has original and
exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter and nature of
the complaint.
In its decision promulgated on November 28, 1997, the
Court of Appeals upheld the order of the trial court and
dismissed the petition for lack of merit. Though it agreed
with petitioners that the trial court had no jurisdiction
insofar as the deed of exchange was concerned for being an
agreement between VGFI and the respondents who are
stockholders of the corporation, the appellate court
maintained that the SEC has no jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the civil action for annulment of the sale.
This was because the validity of the deed of exchange was
not the only matter brought before the trial court. The
validity of the deed of exchange is „intricately connected
with the sale‰ of the real property to Sandalwood by
petitioners Amelita and Romeo, acting in their capacities
as president and vice president, respectively, of VGFI.
Sandalwood has no intra-corporate relationship with
petitioners or respondents. Hence, there was no intra-
corporate dispute.
Specifically, the Court of Appeals held that:
„Such sale purportedly made by the VGFI to Sandalwood Real

Estate & Development Corporation is entirely a different matter.
471
VOL. 313, SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 471

The Deed of Sale (Annex „E,‰ Petition) indicates that the sale was
signed for VGFI by petitioner Amelita S. Saura as President and
Romeo S. Saura as Vice President, in favor of another corporation.
There is no showing that Sandalwood has any intra-corporate
relationship with the petitioners or the private respondents. Hence
the questioned sale between VGFI and Sandalwood is beyond the
10
adjudicative power of the SEC.‰
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

In essence, petitioners Macrina, Amelita and Romeo,
claim that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its
discretion when it upheld the jurisdiction of the trial court
and dismissed their petition. They contend that the main
issue involved in the complaint filed with the trial court is
the validity of the deed of exchange executed between
petitioner VGFI and respondents, which is an intra-
corporate matter falling within the original and exclusive
jurisdiction of the SEC. Petitioners allege that this issue
poses a prejudicial question to the case pending with the
trial court, justifying the suspension of the civil case with
the trial court. In this petition, petitioners advance the
same assignment of errors they made in their petition with
the appellate court.
In the present case, we shall not deal with the merits of
the questioned sale of real property from VGFI to
Sandalwood. That will be resolved by the proper court.
What we are examining here is which as between the
Regional Trial Court and the Securities and Exchange
Commission has the competent jurisdiction over the
questioned sale.
The resolution of the petition hinges on the
determination of the validity of the sale of realty to a third
party not involved in the intra-corporate dispute.
Petitioners contend that the main issue to be resolved is
the validity of the deed of exchange, one that is intra-
corporate in nature since it involved a transaction between
the respondents-stockholders and the corporation. On the
other hand, respondents do not dispute that the validity of
the deed of exchange is in issue;
__________________
10 Rollo, p. 60.
472

however, they contend that this issue is „intricately

connected with the sale of the realty to Sandalwood.‰ It is
their position that this complexity removed the dispute
from the ambit of SECÊs jurisdiction and vested it on the
trial court.
„To determine which body has jurisdiction over the
present controversy, we rely on the sound judicial principle
that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law
and is determined by the allegations of the complaint
irrespective of whether the plaintiff11
is entitled to all or
some of the claims asserted therein.‰
Section 5 of Presidential Decree 902-A sets forth the
jurisdiction of the SEC as follows:
„Sec. 5. In addition to the regulatory and adjudicative functions of

the Securities and Exchange Commission over corporations,
partnerships and other forms of associations registered with it as
expressly granted under existing laws and decrees, it shall have
original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases
involving:
„(a) Devices or schemes employed by or any acts of the board of

directors, business associates, its officers or partners,
amounting to fraud and misrepresentation which may be
detrimental to the interest of the public and/or of
stockholders, partners, members of associations or
organizations registered with the Commission;
„(b) Controversies arising out of intra-corporate or partnership
relations, between and among stockholders, members, or
associates; between any or all of them and the corporation,
partnership or association of which they are stockholders,
members or associates, respectively; and between such
corporation, partnership or association and the State insofar
as it concerns their individual franchise or right to exist as
such entity;
„(c) Controversies in the election or appointment of directors,
trustees, officers or managers of such corporations,

partnerships or associations;
___________________
11 Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, 273 SCRA 239, 247 [1997]; Cf. Jaime Morta,
Sr. vs. Jaime Occidental, G.R. No. 123417, June 10, 1999, 308 SCRA 167;
Panfilo M. Lacson vs. The Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 128096, January 20,
1999, 301 SCRA 298.
473
VOL. 313, SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 473

„(d) Petitions of corporations, partnerships or associations to be

declared in the state of suspension of payments in cases where the
corporation, partnership or association possesses sufficient property
to cover all its debts but foresees the impossibility of meeting them
when they fall due or in cases where the corporation, partnership or
association has no sufficient assets to cover its liabilities but is
under the management of a rehabilitation receiver or management
committee created pursuant to this Decree.‰
„The grant of jurisdiction to the SEC must be viewed in the

light of its nature and function under the law. This
jurisdiction is determined by a concurrence of two
elements: (1) the status or relationship of the parties; and
(2) the nature12
of the question that is the subject of their
controversy.‰
„The first element requires that the controversy must
arise out of intra-corporate or partnership relations
between and among stockholders, members, or associates;
between any or all of them and the corporation,
partnership or association of which they are stockholders,
members or associates, respectively; and between such
corporation, partnership or association and the State
insofar as it concerns their individual franchises. The
second element requires that the dispute among the parties
be intrinsically connected with the 13regulation of the
corporation, partnership or association.‰
In the complaint filed with the trial court, respondents
Ramon, Jr. and Carmencita seek the annulment of the sale

to Sandalwood. Ultimately, the civil case with the trial
court is directed against the buyer of the disputed property,
which has no intra-corporate relationship with respondents
Ramon, Jr. and Carmencita. Petitioners are only impleaded
as necessary parties being the officers of the seller-
corporation. Hence, the controversy is an ordinary civil
litigation beyond the ambit of the limited jurisdiction of the
Securities and Exchange Commission. In the present case,
there is no necessity to resort to the expertise of the SEC.
RespondentsÊ complaint for annul-
___________________
12 Lozano vs. De los Santos, 274 SCRA 452, 457 [1997].

13 Lozano vs. De los Santos, supra; see also Union Glass & Container
Corporation vs. SEC, 126 SCRA 31, 38 [1983].
474

ment of the sale is an ordinary civil action, beyond the

jurisdiction of the SEC.
„It is true that the trend is towards vesting
administrative bodies like the SEC with the power to
adjudicate matters coming under their particular
specialization, to insure a more knowledgeable solution of
the problems submitted to them. This would also relieve
the regular courts of a substantial number of cases that
would otherwise swell their already clogged dockets. But as
expedient as this policy may be, it should not deprive the
courts of justice of their power to decide ordinary cases in
accordance with the general laws that do not require any
particular expertise or training to interpret and apply.
Otherwise, the creeping take-over by the administrative
agencies of the judicial power vested in the courts would
render the judiciary virtually impotent in the 14
discharge of
the duties assigned to it by the Constitution.‰
Since Sandalwood has no intra-corporate relationship
with the respondents, it cannot be joined as party-
defendant in the SEC case as to do so would violate the

rule on jurisdiction. Therefore, respondentsÊ complaint
against Sandalwood for the annulment of the sale of realty
was properly filed before the regular court. This action
must await the final ruling of the issue raised in SEC Case
No. 2968, questioning the validity of the deed of exchange,
the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the
15
issue
involved in the civil action against Sandalwood. Thus,
respondentsÊ complaint for annulment of sale can only
succeed if final judgment is rendered in SEC Case No.
2968, annulling the deed of exchange executed in favor of
VGFI.
Having resolved the issue of jurisdiction, we go into the
discussion of other issues raised in the petition.
Petitioners claim that respondents were guilty of forum
shopping. The appellate court found that there was no
forum shopping.
___________________
14 Macapalan vs. Katalbas-Moscardon, 227 SCRA 49, 54-55 [1993].

15 Union Glass & Container Corporation vs. SEC, supra.
475
VOL. 313, SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 475

We sustain the Court of AppealÊs finding. „Forum-shopping

exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present,
and where a final judgment in one case will amount to res
judicata in the other. Thus, there is forum-shopping when,
between an action pending before this Court and another
one, there exist: Â(a) identity of parties, or at least such
parties as represent the same interests in both actions, (b)
identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief
being founded on the same facts, and (c) the identity of the
two preceding particulars is such that any judgment
rendered in the other action, will, regardless of which party
is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under
consideration; said requisites also constitutive of the
requisites for auter action pendant or lis pendens.Ê Another
case elucidates the consequence of forum-shopping:

Â[W]here a litigant sues the same party against whom
another action or actions for the alleged violation of the
same right and the enforcement of the same relief is/are
still pending, the defense of litis pendentia in one case is a
bar to the others; and, a final judgment in one would
constitute res16
judicata and thus would cause the dismissal
of the rest.‰
Though it might seem that the first requisite was
present in the cases pending with the SEC and the trial
court, we find that the other requisites were not present.
There was no identity in the rights asserted and the relief
prayed for. The case pending with the SEC was for the
annulment of subscription and recovery of corporate assets
and funds. The complaint pending with the trial court
relates to the annulment of sale, declaration of nullity of
deed of exchange, recovery of possession, cancellation of
title, accounting, damages with prayer for receivership ex
parte. The case pending with the SEC involved an issue
different from the case pending with the trial court, such
that any resolution in the first would not amount to res
judicata in the other.
In relation to the contention that the judgment on
compromise between respondent Carmencita and
petitioners barred
__________________
16 Prubankers Association vs. Prudential Bank and Trust Company,

G.R. No. 131247, January 25, 1999, 302 SCRA 74.
476

her from filing the antecedent civil case with the trial court
due to res judicata, the appellate court was right in finding
that res judicata did not exist.17As held in the recent case of
Banaga vs. Court of Appeals, res judicata exists when all
the following elements are present:
(a) the former judgment must be final;

(b) the court which rendered judgment had jurisdiction
over the parties and the subject matter;
(c) it must be a judgment on the merits;
(d) and there must be between the first and second
actions identity of parties, subject matter, and
cause of action.
There is no question that the SEC has jurisdiction over the

question involved. However, it failed to meet all the
elements of res judicata·identity of subject matter and
cause of action. It was not even a complete disposition of
the controversies between the parties because the appellate
court found that „the compromise agreement did not
entirely dispose of the partiesÊ controversy, particularly in
connection with the Gov. Forbes property.‰
In light of the foregoing discussion, the appellate court
correctly ruled that the civil case for annulment of sale of
realty is properly lodged with the regular court.
WHEREFORE, we MODIFY the decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 39557, promulgated on
November 28, 1997. We DIRECT the Securities and
Exchange Commission to proceed with the hearing and
disposition of SEC Case No. 2968 with all deliberate
dispatch, in order to facilitate the proceedings in Civil Case
No. 95-73823 pending with the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 16, Manila, which are suspended until final
outcome of the SEC case.
No costs.
___________________
17 G.R. No. 127941, January 28, 1999, 302 SCRA 331.
477
VOL. 313, SEPTEMBER 2, 1999 477

Barrameda vs. Court of Appeals
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr. (C.J.), Puno, Kapunan and Ynares-

Santiago, JJ.,concur.
Reviewed decision modified.
Note.·Where there is clearly no identity of causes of

action there is no res judicata in the case at bar. (Traders
Royal Bank vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 273 SCRA
521 [1997])
··o0o··
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Saura v. Saura

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Saura v. Saura

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Saura v. Saura

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 313 01/02/2019, 10(34 PM

VOL. 313, SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 465

MACRINA S. SAURA, AMELITA S. SAURA, ROMEO S.

Remedial Law; Jurisdiction; Securities and Exchange

connected with the regulation of the corporation, partnership or

466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Saura vs. Saura, Jr.

directed against the buyer of the disputed property, which has no

particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other action,

VOL. 313, SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 467

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The petition for review on certiorari seeks to annul

1 In CA-G.R. SP No. 39557, promulgated on November 28, 1997,

468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Respondents Ramon G. Saura, Jr., and Carmencita S.

The balance was made to appear as the contribution of

5 The stockholders are Ramon G. Saura, Jr., Carmencita S. Millan,

VOL. 313, SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 469

funds. During the pendency of the proceedings, on May 15,

immediate resolution of the case.

7 Composed by Felipe S. Tongco, Juanito B. Almosa, Jr., and Trinidad

470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Realty Development CorporationÊs claim that respondents

„Such sale purportedly made by the VGFI to Sandalwood Real

VOL. 313, SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 471

Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

however, they contend that this issue is „intricately

„Sec. 5. In addition to the regulatory and adjudicative functions of

„(a) Devices or schemes employed by or any acts of the board of

trustees, officers or managers of such corporations,

VOL. 313, SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 473

„(d) Petitions of corporations, partnerships or associations to be

„The grant of jurisdiction to the SEC must be viewed in the

Ramon, Jr. and Carmencita seek the annulment of the sale

12 Lozano vs. De los Santos, 274 SCRA 452, 457 [1997].

474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ment of the sale is an ordinary civil action, beyond the

defendant in the SEC case as to do so would violate the

14 Macapalan vs. Katalbas-Moscardon, 227 SCRA 49, 54-55 [1993].

VOL. 313, SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 475

We sustain the Court of AppealÊs finding. „Forum-shopping

case elucidates the consequence of forum-shopping:

16 Prubankers Association vs. Prudential Bank and Trust Company,

476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

(a) the former judgment must be final;

There is no question that the SEC has jurisdiction over the

17 G.R. No. 127941, January 28, 1999, 302 SCRA 331.

VOL. 313, SEPTEMBER 2, 1999 477

Davide, Jr. (C.J.), Puno, Kapunan and Ynares-

Reviewed decision modified.

Note.·Where there is clearly no identity of causes of

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like