Hannah Corporation (HC) is the registered owner of a parcel of land in Kapitolyo, Pasig City. Saint Aaron School (SAS), occupied said lot by mere tolerance since 1992 until December 2018. HC informed SAS that beginning January 1, 2019, it will be charging ₱100,000 per month for the use and occupation of the property. SAS refused to pay the monthly rentals prompting HC to issue a demand letter for the payment of the amount of ₱4.8 million, representing the unpaid rentals from January 2019 to December 2022. SAS failed to heed the demand of HC. Hence, HC, which holds business in Quezon City, filed a complaint for collection of a sum of money against SAS in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. SAS filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum shopping since HC had also filed an ejectment case against it before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City. Should the RTC grant the motion to dismiss on the ground of forum shopping? Explain your answer.
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
No, the RTC should not grant the motion to dismiss on the ground of forum shopping.
Under jurisprudence and Section 5, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court, forum shopping requires identity of causes of action, rights asserted, and reliefs prayed for, such that litis pendentia or res judicata exists. An ordinary civil action for collection of a sum of money cannot be joined with a special civil action for ejectment.
Here, HC's collection suit seeks the payment of unpaid rentals, whereas its ejectment case seeks recovery of material possession. Because the two actions involve distinct causes of action and reliefs, a judgment in one will not amount to res judicata in the other.
Therefore, the RTC should deny the motion to dismiss on the ground of forum shopping.
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
Should the RTC grant the motion to dismiss on the ground of forum shopping?
An ordinary civil action for collection cannot be joined with a special civil action for ejectment, so filing them separately is not forum shopping.
What is a mandatory test to determine the existence of prohibited forum shopping between two pending actions?
Forum shopping requires that a judgment in one case would operate as res judicata in the other.
Under Section 5, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court, which of the following may NOT be joined with an ordinary civil action?
Section 5, Rule 2 explicitly prohibits joining special civil actions or actions governed by special rules with ordinary civil actions.
What is the primary relief sought in a special civil action for unlawful detainer under Rule 70?
Ejectment suits under Rule 70 specifically seek the recovery of physical or material possession of real property.
Why does a judgment in an ejectment case not constitute res judicata in an independent collection suit for past rentals?
Res judicata does not apply because ejectment involves physical possession while a collection suit involves monetary debt.
Learn more about these topics
1. Forum Shopping Elements
Under Section 5, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court, forum shopping exists when a party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances. To establish forum shopping, there must be identity of parties, identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, and identity of the two preceding particulars such that any judgment rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other case. In the absence of these elements, forum shopping cannot be validly invoked.
2. Misjoinder of Actions
Under Section 5, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court, a party may in one pleading assert as many causes of action as he may have against an opposing party. However, this joinder of causes of action is subject to specific statutory conditions. Particularly, the joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by special rules. Because ejectment is a summary special civil action governed by Rule 70 while a collection suit is an ordinary civil action, they cannot be joined in a single complaint.
3. Distinct Causes
An action for unlawful detainer seeks the recovery of physical or material possession of real property along with reasonable compensation for its use and occupation up to the time possession is restored. In contrast, an independent collection suit for a sum of money seeks the enforcement of a monetary obligation or debt. Because the cause of action, primary relief, and applicable trial procedures in an ejectment case differ fundamentally from an ordinary collection suit, filing both actions simultaneously does not constitute prohibited forum shopping.