FPIB v. CA (G.R. No. 115849; January 24, 1996)
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
(Please help us make a case digest for this piece of jurisprudence. You may leave your contribution in the comment section below or email us at info@projectjurisprudence.com. Please include your name so we can properly give credit to you for your work.)
SYLLABUS
1. CIVIL LAW; PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW; ORIGIN OF FORUM-SHOPPING. - Forum-Shopping originated as a concept in private international law, where non-resident litigants are given the option to choose the forum or place wherein to bring their suit for various reasons or excuses, including to secure procedural advantages, to annoy and harass the defendant, to avoid overcrowded dockets, or to select a more friendly venue. To combat these less than honorable excuses, the principle of forum non conveniens was developed whereby a court, in conflict of law cases. may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the most convenient or available forum and the parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere. Hence, according to Words and Phrases, a litigant is open to the charge of forum shopping whenever he chooses a forum with the slight connection to factual circumstances surrounding his suit, and litigants should be encouraged to attempt to settle their differences without imposing undue expense and vexatious situations on the courts.
2. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; FORUM-SHOPPING; AS A CHOICE OF VENUE AND AS A CHOICE OF REMEDY; CONSTRUED. - In the Philippines, forum shopping has acquired a connotation encompassing not only a choice of venues, as it was originally understood in conflicts of law, but also to a choice of remedies. As to the first (choice of venues), the Rules of Court, for example, allow a plaintiff to commence personal actions where the defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff or any of the plaintiffs resides, at the election of the plaintiff (Rule 4, Sec. 2 [b]). As to remedies, aggrieved parties, for example, are given a choice of pursuing civil liabilities independently of the criminal, arising from the same set of facts. A passenger of a public utility vehicle involved in a vehicular accident may sue on culpa contractual, culpa aquiliana or culpa criminal - each remedy being available independently of the others - although he cannot recover more than once. In either of these situations (choice of venue or choice of remedy), the litigant actually shops for a forum of his action. This was the original concept of the term forum-shopping.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; AS AN UNETHICAL PRACTICE; WHEN PRESENT. - What originally started both in conflicts of laws and in our domestic law as a legitimate device for solving problems has been abused and mis-used to assure scheming litigants of dubious reliefs. To avoid or minimize this unethical practice of subverting justice, the Supreme Court, as already mentioned, promulgated Circular 28-91. And even before that, the Court had proscribed it in the Interim Rules and Guidelines issued on January 11, 1983 and had struck down in several cases the inveterate use of this insidious malpractice. Forum-shopping as the filing of repetitious suits in different courts has been condemned by Justice Andres R. Narvasa(now Chief Justice) in Minister of Natural Resources, et al., vs. Heirs of Orval Hughes, et al., as a reprehensible manipulation of court processes and proceedings x x x. When does forum shopping take place? There is forum-shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another. The principle applies not only with respect to suits filed in the courts but also in connection with litigations commenced in the courts while an administrative proceeding is pending, as in this case, in order to defeat administrative processes and in anticipation of an unfavorable administrative ruling and a favorable court ruling. This is specially so, as in this case, where the court in which the second suit was brought, has no jurisdiction.
4. ID; ID.; ID.; AS A GROUND FOR SUMMARY DISMISSAL. - The test for determining whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping has been laid down in the 1986 case of Buan vs. Lopez, 145 SCRA 34 (October 13, 1986), also by Chief Justice Narvasa, and that is, forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. Consequently, where a litigant (or one representing the same interest or person) 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 pendencia in one case is a bar to the others; and, a final judgment in one would constitute res judicata and this would cause the dismissal of the rest. In either case, forum-shopping could be cited by the other party as a ground to ask for summary dismissal of the two (or more) complaints or petitions, and for the imposition of the other sanctions, which are direct contempt of court, criminal prosecution, and disciplinary action against the erring lawyer. What is truly important to consider in determining whether forum-shopping exists or not is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigant by a party who asks different courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related causes and/or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issue.
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLE IN CASE AT BAR. - Applying the foregoing principles in the present case and comparing it with the Second Case, it is obvious that there exist identity of parties or interests represented, identity of rights or causes and identity of reliefs sought. Very simply stated, the original complaint in the court a quo which gave rise to the instant petition was filed by the buyer to enforce the alleged perfected sale of real estate. On the other hand, the complaint in the Second Case seeks to declare such purported sale involving the same real property as unenforceable as against the Bank, which is the petitioner herein. In other words, in the Second Case, the majority stockholders, in representation of the Bank, are seeking to accomplish what the Bank itself failed to do in the original case in the trial court. In brief, the objective or the relief being sought, though worded differently, is the same, namely, to enable the petitioner Bank to escape from the obligation to sell the property to respondent. In this case, a decision recognizing the perfection and directing the enforcement of the contract of sale will directly conflict with a possible decision in the Second Case barring the parties from enforcing or implementing the said sale. Indeed, a final decision in one would constitute res judicata in the other.
6. COMMERCIAL LAW; CORPORATION CODE; DERIVATIVE SUIT, CONSTRUED. - An individual stockholder is permitted to institute a derivative suit on behalf of the corporation wherein he holds stock in order to protect or vindicate corporate rights, whenever the officials of the corporation refuse to sue, or are the ones to be sued or hold the control of the corporation. In such actions, the suing stockholder is regarded as a nominal party, with the corporation as the real party in interest (Gamboa v. Victoriano, 90 SCRA 40, 47 [1979]).
7. ID.; ID.; WHEN THE VEIL OF CORPORATE FICTION MAY BE LIFTED. - Petitioner also tried to seek refuge in the corporate fiction that the personality of the Bank is separate and distinct from its shareholders. But the rulings of this Court are consistent: When the fiction is urged as a means of perpetrating a fraud or an illegal act or as a vehicle for the evasion of an existing obligation, the circumvention of statutes, the achievement or perfection of a monopoly or generally the perpetration of knavery or crime, the veil with which the law covers and isolates the corporation from the members or stockholders who compose it will be lifted to allow for its consideration merely as an aggregation of individuals. In addition to the many cases where the corporate fiction has been disregarded, we now add the instant case, and declare herewith that the corporate veil cannot be used to shield an otherwise blatant violation of the prohibition against forum-shopping. Shareholders, whether suing as the majority in direct action or as the minority in a derivative suit, cannot be allowed to trifle with court processes, particularly where, as in this case, the corporation itself has not been remiss in vigorously prosecuting or defending corporate causes and in using and applying remedies available to it. To rule otherwise would be to encourage corporate litigants to use their shareholders as fronts to circumvent the stringent rules against forum shopping.
8. CIVIL LAW; CONTRACT; REQUISITE. Article 1318 of the Civil Code enumerates the requisites of a valid and perfected contract as follows: (1) Consent of the contracting parties; (2) Object certain which is the subject matter of the contract; (3) Cause of the obligation which is established.
9. COMMERCIAL LAW; CORPORATION CODE; BANKS; DOCTRINE OF APPARENT AUTHORITY; CONSTRUED. - The authority of a corporate officer in dealing with third persons may be actual or apparent. The doctrine of apparent authority, with special reference to banks, was laid out in Prudential Bank vs. Court of Appeals, 223 SCRA 350 (June 14, 1993), where it was held that: Conformably, we have declared in countless decisions that the principal is liable for obligations contracted by the agent. The agents apparent representation yields to the principals true representation and the contract is considered as entered into between the principal and the third person (citing National Food Authority vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 184 SCRA 166).A bank is liable for wrongful acts of its officers done in the interests of the bank or in the course of dealing of the officers in their representative capacity but not for acts outside the scope of their authority (9 C.J.S., P. 417). A bank holding out its officers and agents as worthy of confidence will not be permitted to profit by the frauds they may thus be enabled to perpetrate in the apparent scope of their employment; nor will it be permitted to shirk its responsibility for such frauds, even though no benefit may accrue to the bank therefrom (10 Am Jur 2d, p. 114). Accordingly, a banking corporation is liable to innocent third persons where the representation is made in the course of its business by an agent acting within the general scope of his authority even though, in the particular case, the agent is secretly abusing his authority and attempting to perpetrate a fraud upon his principal or some other person, for his own ultimate benefit (McIntosh v. Dakota Trust Co., 52 ND 752, 204 NW 818, 40 ALR 1021). Application of these principles is especially necessary because banks have a fiduciary relationship with the public and their stability depends on the confidence of the people in their honesty and efficiency. Such faith will be eroded where banks do not exercise strict care in the selection and supervision of its employees, resulting in prejudice to their depositors.
10. CIVIL LAW; CONTRACTS; WHEN DEFECTS THEREOF UNDER STATUTE OF FRAUD DEEMED WAIVED. - The statute of frauds will not apply by reason of the failure of petitioners to object to oral testimony proving petitioner Banks counter-offer of P5.5 million. Hence, petitioners - by such utter failure to object - are deemed to have waived any defects of the contracts under the statute of frauds, pursuant to Article 1405 of the Civil Code. As private respondent pointed out in his Memorandum, oral testimony on the reaffirmation of the counter-offer of P5.5 million is aplenty - and the silence of petitioners all throughout the presentation makes the evidence binding on them.
11. REMEDIAL LAW; PETITION FOR REVIEW; FINDINGS OF FACTS BY THE COURT OF APPEALS; NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE SUPREME COURT; RULE AND EXCEPTION. - Basic is the doctrine that in petitions for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, findings of fact by the Court of Appeals are not reviewable by the Supreme Court. However, there are settled exceptions where the Supreme Court may disregard findings of fact by the Court of Appeals. Indeed, conclusions of fact of a trial judge - as affirmed by the Court of Appeals - are conclusive upon this Court, absent any serious abuse or evident lack of basis or capriciousness of any kind, because the trial court is in a better position to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and their courtroom manner as well as to examine the real evidence presented.
12. POWERS OF THE CONSERVATOR. - While admittedly, the Central Bank law gives vast and far-reaching powers to the conservator of a bank, it must be pointed out that such powers must be related to the (preservation of) the assets of the bank (the reorganization of) the management thereof and (the restoration of) its viability. Such powers, enormous and extensive as they are, cannot extend to the post-facto repudiation of perfected transactions, otherwise they would infringe against the non-impairment clause of the Constitution. If the legislature itself cannot revoke an existing valid contract, how can it delegate such non-existent powers to the conservator under Section 28-A of said law? Obviously, therefore, Section 28-A merely gives the conservator power to revoke contracts that are, under existing law, deemed to be defective - i.e., void, voidable, unenforceable or rescissible. Hence, the conservator merely takes the place of a banks board of directors. What the said board cannot do - such as repudiating a contract validly entered into under the doctrine of implied authority - the conservator cannot do either. Ineluctably, his power is not unilateral and he cannot simply repudiate valid obligations of the Bank. His authority would be only to bring court actions to assail such contracts - as he has already done so in the instant case. A contrary understanding of the law would simply not be permitted by the Constitution. Neither by common sense. To rule otherwise would be to enable a failing bank to become solvent, at the expense of third parties, by simply getting the conservator to unilaterally revoke all previous dealings which had one way or another come to be considered unfavorable to the Bank, yielding nothing to perfected contractual rights nor vested interests of the third parties who had dealt with the Bank.
