You are on page 1of 2

REMEDIAL LAW BAR QUESTIONS

2007 – 2013

Civil Procedure

QUESTION 15

Source: 2010, IV.A, B., C.


Topic: (A) Forum Shopping; (B) Motion to Dismiss – Litis Pendentia; (C) Parties to a Pleading –
Indispensable Parties

X was driving the dump truck of Y along Cattleya Street in Sta. Maria, Bulacan. Due to his negligence, X
hit and injured V who was crossing the street. Lawyer L, who witnessed the incident, offered his legal
services to V.

V, who suffered physical injuries including fractured wrist bone, underwent surgery to screw a metal plate
to his wrist bone.

On complaint of V, a criminal case for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Serious Physical Injuries was
filed against X before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Sta. Maria. Atty L, the private prosecutor, did
not reserve the filing of a separate civil action.

V subsequently filed a complaint for Damages against X and Y before the Regional Trial Court of
Pangasinan in Urdaneta where he resides. In his "Certification Against Forum Shopping", V made no
mention of the pendency of the criminal case in Sta. Maria.

A. Is V guilty of forum shopping? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, V is not guilty of forum shopping because the case in Sta. Maria, Bulacan, is a criminal action
filed in the name of the People of the Philippines, where civil liability arising from the crime is deemed
also instituted therewith; whereas the case filed in Urdaneta, Pangasinan, is a civil action for quasi-
delict in the name of V and against both X and Y for all damages caused by X and Y to V, which may
be beyond the jurisdiction of MTC. Hence, the tests of forum shopping, which is res adjudicata or
litis pendencia, do not obtain here.

Moreover, substantive law (Art 33, Civil Code) and Sec 3, Rule III, Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, expressly authorizes the filing such action for damages entirely separate and distinct from
the criminal action.

B. Instead of filing an Answer, X and Y moved to dismiss the complaint for damages on the ground of litis
pendentia. Is this motion meritorious? Explain. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the motion to dismiss base on alleged litis pendentia is without merit because there is no identity
of parties and subject matter in the two cases. Besides, Art 33 of the Civil Code and Rule III, Sec 3 of
the Rules of Criminal Procedure authorize the separate civil action for damages arising from physical
injuries to proceed independently.

C. Suppose only X was named as defendant in the complaint for damages, may he move for the dismissal
of the complaint for failure of V to implead Y as an indispensable party? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, X may not move for dismissal of the civil action for damages on the contention that Y is an
indispensable party who should be impleaded. Y is not an indispensable party but only a necessary
party. Besides, non-joinder and misjoinder of parties is not a ground for dismissal of actions. (Rule
3, Sec 11, Rules of Court).

You might also like