Case Digest: PUBLIC INTEREST CENTER INC., et al. v. HONORABLE VICENTE Q. ROXAS, et al.

PUBLIC INTEREST CENTER INC., et al. v. HONORABLE VICENTE Q. ROXAS, et al.
513 SCRA 457 (2007), SECOND DIVISION

Respondent National Power Corporation (NPC) entered into a contract with Westinghouse Electric S.A. (WESA), an affiliate or subsidiary of Westinghouse Electric Corporation (WESTINGHOUSE), whereby WESA undertook to construct in favor of the NPC a 620-megawatt nuclear power plant at Morong, Bataan. WESA subsequently executed a deed of assignment transferring all its rights and responsibilities in the contract to its construction arm-agent, respondent Westinghouse International Projects Company (WIPCO).

Pres. Corazon Aquino issued an executive order transferring ownership of the already constructed power plant, together with its equipment, materials and facilities, records and uranium fuel to the National Government or its duly constituted agency. After series of talks, the government panel and Westinghouse eventually agreed on a settlement involving a package of more than 100 million dollars. Petitioners Public Interest Inc., et al., (PICI), as tax payers, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a complaint for declaration of nullity the contract with application for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The Solicitor General moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that PICI were engaged in forum-shopping, their counsel Atty. Reyes having previously filed cases with causes of action identical thereto.

ISSUE:

Whether or not PICI are engaged in forum-shopping and thus can affect the dismissal of their complaint

HELD:

In this case, the court said that granted the PICI were initially unaware of the existence of the first set of cases, albeit their counsel was one of the petitioners therein; such fact was already brought to their attention during a hearing. They failed to report the pendency of the petition for mandamus before the appellate court bearing on the dismissal by the Manila RTC. Thus, the dismissal of PICI‘s complaint is in order.

PICI violated the requirement to report to the courts the fact that a similar action had been filed or is already pending before the courts, regardless of who initiated such similar action. As stated in Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court for Certification against forum-shopping: The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification: c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.

Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided upon motion and after hearing.