Dynamic Builders vs Presbitero CASE DIGEST - Civil Procedure - Splitting single cause of action

Dynamic Builders vs Presbitero

Facts: 2005, the Municipality of Valladolid, Negros Occidental, through its Bids and Awards Committee, published an invitation to bid for the construction of a 1,050-lineal-meter rubble concrete seawall along the municipality's shoreline.  The Committee conducted a pre-bid conference attended by 6 prospective contractors including Dynamic Builders. The Committee affirmed the award of contract to HLJ Construction for the Construction Shoreline Protection Project. The Committee informed Dynamic Builders of the post-evaluation examination results showing Dynamic Builders' failure in its Financial Contracting Capability. Dynamic Builders lodged a formal protest with the head of the procuring entity, Mayor Presbitero to set aside the Committee decision. Mayor Presbitero dismissed.

Pursuant to Art XVII, Sec 58 of RA No. 9184, the Government Procurement Reform Act, Dynamic Builders filed the Petition for Certiorari before the RTC assailing Mayor Presbitero's Decision. Presbitero counter that petitioner "grossly violated the rules against splitting a single cause of action, multiplicity of suits, and forum shopping.

Issue: WON DB violated the rules against the splitting of a cause of action, multiplicity of suits, and forum shopping;

Held:  Rule 2, Sec 3 provides that "a party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action." Moreover, Section 4 discusses the splitting of a single cause of action in that "if two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others." The splitting of a cause of action "violates the policy against multiplicity of suits, whose primary objective is to avoid unduly burdening the dockets of the courts."

This Petition seeks to enjoin the execution of Presbitero’s Decision and Resolution on the protest- the same Decision and Resolution sought to be set aside in the Petition before the RTC. In essence, petitioner seeks the same relief through two separate Petitions filed before separate courts. This violates the rule against forum shopping.

Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court requires the plaintiff or principal party to certify under oath that he or she has not commenced any action involving the same issues in any court.

Forum shopping is the practice of litigants resorting to two different fora for the purpose of obtaining the same relief, to increase their chances of obtaining a favorable judgment. Forum shopping is present when, in two or more cases pending, there is identity of (1) parties (2) rights or causes of action and reliefs prayed for and (3) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other action, will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.