A party, through counsel, filed a complaint to nullify the extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage done by a creditor bank. The bank had already filed its answer. However, the counsel for the plaintiff felt that the judge was partial to the defendant’s counsel. Wanting to bolster the chances of winning for their client, the counsel for the plaintiff filed a second case against the same bank seeking to nullify the same extrajudicial foreclosure, but this time adding a prayer for the award of damages. The second case was raffled to another judge. The defendant bank’s counsel then moved to dismiss the second case. Will the motion prosper? Explain briefly.
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
Yes, the motion to dismiss the second case will prosper. Under the Rules of Court, a motion to dismiss lies on the ground of litis pendentia when another action is pending between the same parties for the same cause. Litis pendentia requires identity
Unlock the full Remedial Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
What ground under the Rules of Court justifies the dismissal of a second suit filed between the same parties over the same extrajudicial foreclosure?
Litis pendentia warrants dismissal when another action is pending between the same parties for the same cause of action.
What is the legal effect of adding a prayer for damages in a second complaint based on the same extrajudicial foreclosure?
Adding a prayer for damages does not alter the single cause of action, constituting impermissible splitting.
Which requisite is NOT required for litis pendentia to exist between two civil actions?
Criminal conviction of the defendant is not a requisite for litis pendentia in civil procedure.
What procedural violation occurs when a plaintiff files a second identical suit before a different judge to seek a favorable outcome?
Choices available with full access.
Under Section 4, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court, what is the consequence of splitting a single cause of action into multiple suits?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Litis Pendentia Requisites
Under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, litis pendentia as a ground for a motion to dismiss requires three requisites: identity of parties or interests, identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for based on the same facts, and identity such that any judgment rendered in the pending case would amount to res judicata in the second action. When a prior action is already pending between the same parties involving the same extrajudicial foreclosure, filing a subsequent complaint based on identical operative facts triggers litis pendentia and warrants the immediate dismissal of the second action.
2. Splitting Cause Action
A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. Section 4, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court prohibits splitting a single cause of action into multiple lawsuits. If two or more suits are instituted on the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment on the merits is a ground for dismissing the others. Adding an incidental prayer for damages in a second suit does not create a distinct cause of action because the underlying wrong remains identical.
3. Forum Shopping Prohibition
Forum shopping occurs when a party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, to obtain a favorable judgment. Filing a second complaint involving the same extrajudicial foreclosure before a different judge, motivated by perceived judicial partiality, constitutes willful forum shopping. Forum shopping violates ethical standards, abuses court processes, and creates the danger of conflicting rulings by different tribunals on the same controversy. When forum shopping is present, the summary dismissal of the subsequent action with prejudice is required to preserve judicial integrity.