First Philippine International Bank vs. CA

First Philippine International Bank vs Court of Appeals 252 SCRA 259 – Legal Ethics – Forum Shopping Civil Law – Contract of Sale – Parties to a Sales Contract Producers Bank (now called First Philippine International Bank), which has been under cons co nser erva vato tors rshi hip p si sinc nce e 19 19! !,, is th the e ow owne nerr of " pa parrce cels ls of la land nd## $h $he e Ba Bank nk ha had d an a%ree& a%r ee&ent ent wit with h 'e 'e&et &etrio rio 'e& 'e&etr etria ia and os ose e an anolo olo for the two to pur purcha chase se the parcels of land for a purchase price of P# &illion pesos# $he said a%ree&ent was &ade &a de b* 'e 'e&e &etr tria ia an and d a ano nolo lo wi with th th the e Ba Bank nk+s +s &a &ana na%e %er, r, e errcu curi rio o -i -ive vera ra## .a .ate terr howe ho weve ver, r, th the e Ba Bank nk,, th thrrou ou%h %h it its s co cons nser erva vato tor, r, .e .eon onid ida a /n /nca carrna naci cion on,, so sou% u%ht ht th the e repudiation of the a%ree&ent as it alle%ed that -ivera was not authori0ed to enter into such su ch an a% a%rree ee&e &ent nt,, he henc nce e th ther ere e wa was s no va vali lid d co cont ntra ract ct of sa sale le## u ubs bse2 e2ue uent ntl* l*,, 'e&etria and anolo sued Producers Bank# $he re%ional trial court ruled in favor of  'e&etria et al# $he Bank 3led an appeal with the Court of Appeals# eanwhile, 4enr* Co, who holds 56 shares of stocks with the said Bank, 3led a &otion for intervention with the trial court# $he trial court denied the &otion since the trial has been concluded alread* and the case is now pendin% appeal# ubse2uentl*, Co, assisted b* ACC-A law o7ce, 3led a separate civil case a%ainst 'e&etria and  anolo seekin% to have the purported contract of sale be declared unenforc unenforceable eable a%ains a%a instt the Ban Bank# k# 'e& 'e&etr etria ia et al ar ar%ue %ued d th that at the sec secon ond d cas case e con consti stitut tutes es for foru& u& shoppin%# ISSUES:

1# 8hether or not there is foru& shoppin%# # 8hether or not there is a perfected contract of sale# HELD:

1# :es# $here is foru& foru& shoppin% because because there is identit* identit* of interest and parties parties between the 3rst case and the second case# $here is identit* of interest because both cases sou%ht to have the a%ree&ent, which involves the sa&e propert*, propert*, be declared unenforceable unenforceable as a%ainst the Bank# $here is identit* of parties even thou%h the 3rst case is in the na&e of the bank as defendant, and the second case is in the na&e of 4enr* Co as plainti;# $here is still foru& shoppin% here because 4enr* Co essentiall* represents the bank# Both cases ai& to have the bank escape liabilit* fro& the a%ree&ent it entered into with 'e&etria et al# $he upre&e upre& e Court did not la* down an* disciplinar* action a%ainst the ACCACC-A A law*ers but the* were warned that a repetition will be dealt with &ore severel*# # :es# $here $here is a perfected contract contract of sale sale because the bank bank &ana%er, &ana%er, -ivera, entered into the a%ree&ent with apparent authorit*# $his apparent authorit* has been dul* proved b* the evidence presented which showed that in all the dealin%s and transactions, -ivera participated activel* without the opposition of the conservator# conservator# In fact, in the advertise&ents and announce&ents announce&ents of the bank, -ivera was desi%nated as the %o