Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

Z.E. LOTHI v. ICE

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR NO. 159786 2006-08-15	EDGARDO V. GUEVARA v. BPI SECURITIES CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A Motion to Dismiss the amended Complaint was later filed by 1488, Ducat and Daic. The Resolution of the said Motion was, however, deferred pending the resolution by the Supreme Court of G.R. No. 103493[17] which involved Ducat's earlier Motion to Dismiss the original complaint in Civil Case No. 16563.
	GR NO. 159786 2006-08-15	EDGARDO V. GUEVARA v. BPI SECURITIES CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
On 24 April 1995, Guevara filed another Complaint against BPI Securities Corp. seeking the recovery of actual, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees in the aggregate amount of P11,900,000.00 as indemnity for the expenses and annoyance of litigation, arising from his being wrongly impleaded as a party-defendant in the U.S. case. Guevara banked on the ruling of the U.S. District Court that the counter-complaint filed by PHILSEC, AIFL and ATHONA was frivolous and dilatory.[21] This case was docketed as Civil Case No. 95-624 with the Makati City RTC, Branch 135.[22] A Motion to Dismiss was filed by BPI Securities Corp. alleging forum shopping for Civil Case No. 16563 was still pending before the Makati City RTC, Branch 61.[23] The Motion was denied by the trial court in its Order dated 17 November 1995[24] and the Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied by the same court on 22 February 1996.[25] On certiorari under Rule 65 to the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 40303, the appellate court affirmed, in a Decision dated 26 January 1998, the ruling of the trial court.[26] The said Decision thereafter became final and executory.
	GR NO. 159786 2006-08-15	EDGARDO V. GUEVARA v. BPI SECURITIES CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the meantime, G.R. No. 103493,[27] which involved Ducat's Motion to Dismiss the original complaint in Civil Case No. 16563, was finally resolved. In a Decision dated 19 June 1997,[28] this Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court for continuance and consolidation of Civil Case No. 16563 with Civil Case No. 92-1070, then pending with the Makati City RTC, Branch 134. In the same Decision, this Court also allowed Civil Case No. 92-1445, pending with the Makati City RTC, Branch 137, to proceed as the judgment sought to be enforced therein is severable from the main judgment under consideration in Civil Case No. 16563.
	GR NO. 159786 2006-08-15	EDGARDO V. GUEVARA v. BPI SECURITIES CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
On the other hand, respondent BPI Securities Corp., in its Comment,[42] contends that when the Makati City RTC, Branch 61, admitted the amended Complaint in Civil Case No. 16563, which impleaded Guevara as an additional defendant, and Guevara filed his Answer thereto, there became legal ground for BPI Securities Corp. to raise the issue of litis pendentia in Civil Case No. 95-624. The ruling in CA-G.R. SP No. 40303 could not be applied as the law of the case herein because when that case was decided, Guevara was not yet a party in Civil Case No. 16563. The ruling in CA-G.R. SP No. 40303,[43] thus, relied on a different factual premise from the case presently before this Court.[44]
	GR NO. 159786 2006-08-15	EDGARDO V. GUEVARA v. BPI SECURITIES CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioner Guevara argues that the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 40303 constitutes the law of the case between the parties herein and cannot anymore be altered by any court as the same had already attained finality.[47] Let it be recalled that in the said decision, the Court of Appeals ruled that the elements of litis pendentia are not present in Civil Case No. 16563 and Civil Case No. 95-624. Therefore, the two cases can co-exist.
	GR NO. 159786 2006-08-15	EDGARDO V. GUEVARA v. BPI SECURITIES CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Consequently, Guevara's compulsory counterclaim in Civil Case No. 16563 could not be the same as his cause of action in Civil Case No. 95-624. The wrongful acts committed by the BPI Securities Corp. which gave rise to Guevara's cause of action were different in the two cases. A compulsory counterclaim is one which arises out of or is connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing party's claim.[51] Guevara's compulsory counterclaim in Civil Case No. 16563 arises out of his being impleaded in the annulment of contract case. In comparison, Guevara's cause of action in Civil Case No. 95-624 springs from his being maliciously and erroneously impleaded as a defendant in the U.S. case. There being no similarity of interests, nor identity of rights asserted or reliefs prayed for by Guevara in his compulsory counterclaim in Civil Case No. 16563 and in his cause of action in Civil Case No. 95-624, litis pendentia cannot effectively preclude him from filing the latter case.