WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in

CA-G.R. CV No. 87026 is AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Chairperson), Peralta, Abad and Mendoza, JJ.,

concur. 

Judgment affirmed in toto.

Note.—The Court has previously held that for purposes

of res judicata, only substantial identity of parties is
required and not absolute identity. (Layos vs. Fil-Estate
Golf and Development, Inc., 561 SCRA 75 [2008])
——o0o——

G.R. No. 178591. July 26, 2010.*

SM SYSTEMS CORPORATION (formerly Springsun

Management Systems Corporation), petitioner, vs. OSCAR
CAMERINO, EFREN CAMERINO, CORNELIO
MANTILE, DOMINGO ENRIQUEZ, and HEIRS OF
NOLASCO DEL ROSARIO, respondents.

Remedial Law; Actions; Forum Shopping; Forum Shopping

Explained; The rationale against forum shopping is that a party
should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in two
different fora.—Forum shopping is the act of a litigant who
repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts,
simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the
same transactions and on the same essential facts and
circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues
either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other
court, to increase his chances of obtaining a favorable decision if
not in one court, then in another. The rationale

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

483

VOL. 625, JULY 26, 2010 483

 SM Systems Corporation vs. Camerino

against forum shopping is that a party should not be allowed to

pursue simultaneous remedies in two different fora. Filing
multiple petitions or complaints constitutes abuse of court
processes, which tends to degrade the administration of justice,
wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial procedure, and adds to the
congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts.
Same; Same; Same; Accepted   test to determine whether a
party violated the rule against forum shopping.—To determine
whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping, the
most important question to ask is whether the elements of litis
pendentia are present or whether a final judgment in one case will
result to res judicata in another.
Same; Same; Suspension of Proceedings; Court in which an
action is pending may, in the exercise of sound discretion, hold the
action in abeyance to abide by the outcome of another case pending
in another court; Guiding Precepts in the Suspension of
Proceedings.—We are not unmindful of the right of every party to
a speedy disposition of his case, but the rights of the parties
herein cannot be properly determined until the resolution of the
issues in the other action. The court in which an action is pending
may, in the exercise of sound discretion, hold the action in
abeyance to abide by the outcome of another case pending in
another court. Undeniably, the power to stay proceedings is an
incident to the power inherent in every court to control the
disposition of the cases on its dockets, considering its time and
effort, and those of counsel and litigants. Every order suspending
proceedings must be guided by the following precepts: it shall be
done in order to avoid multiplicity of suits and to prevent
vexatious litigations, conflicting judgments, confusion between
litigants and courts, or when the rights of parties to the second
action cannot be properly determined until the questions raised in
the first action are settled.
Same; Compromise Agreements; To be sure, the parties may
execute a compromise agreement even after the finality of the
decision.—Once a case is terminated by final judgment, the rights
of the parties are settled; hence, a compromise agreement is no
longer necessary. Though it may not be prudent to do so, we have
seen in a number of cases that parties still considered and had, in
fact, executed such agreement. To be sure, the parties may
execute a com-

484

484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

SM Systems Corporation vs. Camerino

promise agreement even after the finality of the decision. A
reciprocal concession inherent in a compromise agreement
assures benefits for the contracting parties. For the defeated
litigant, obvious is the advantage of a compromise after final
judgment as the liability decreed by the judgment may be
reduced. As to the prevailing party, it assures receipt of payment
because litigants are sometimes deprived of their winnings
because of unscrupulous mechanisms meant to delay or evade the
execution of a final judgment.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

NACHURA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Court of
Appeals (CA) Decision1 dated October 23, 2006, and its
Resolution2 dated June 29, 2007, in CA-G.R. SP No. 92994.
The facts of the case, as summarized in Springsun
Management Systems Corporation v. Camerino,3 and as
found by the CA, are as follows:
Victoria Homes, Inc. (Victoria Homes) was the
registered owner of three (3) lots (subject lots), covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. (289237) S-6135, S-
72244, and (289236) S-35855, with an area of 109,451
square meters, 73,849 sq m, and 109,452 sq m,
respectively. These lots are situated in Barrio Bagbagan,
Muntinlupa, Rizal (now Barangay Tunasan, Muntinlupa
City, Metro Manila).
Since 1967, respondents Oscar Camerino, Efren
Camerino, Cornelio Mantile, Domingo Enriquez, and
Nolasco del Rosario (herein represented by his heirs) were
farmers-tenants of

_______________

1  Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. de Leon, with Associate

Justices Rebecca de Guia-Salvador and Ramon R. Garcia, concurring;
Rollo, pp. 61-77.
2 Id., at pp. 79-80.
3 489 Phil. 769; 449 SCRA 65 (2005).

485

VOL. 625, JULY 26, 2010 485

SM Systems Corporation vs. Camerino

Victoria Homes, cultivating and planting rice and corn on

the lots.
On February 9, 1983 and July 12, 1983, Victoria Homes,
without notifying respondents, sold the subject lots to
Springsun Management Systems Corporation (Springsun),
the predecessor-in-interest of petitioner SM Systems
Corporation.4 The Deeds of Sale were registered with the
Registry of Deeds of Rizal. Accordingly, TCT Nos. (289237)
S-6135, (289236) S-35855, and S-72244 in the name of
Victoria Homes were cancelled and, in lieu thereof, TCT
Nos. 120541, 120542, and 123872 were issued in the name
of Springsun. Springsun subsequently mortgaged the
subject lots to Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank
(Banco Filipino) as security for its various loans amounting
to P11, 545,000.00. When Springsun failed to pay its loans,
the mortgage was foreclosed extra-judicially. At the public
auction sale, the lots were sold to Banco Filipino, being the
highest bidder, but they were eventually redeemed by
Springsun.
On March 7, 1995, respondents filed with the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 256, Muntinlupa City, a
complaint against Springsun and Banco Filipino for
Prohibition/Certiorari, Reconveyance/Redemption,
Damages, Injunction with Preliminary Injunction and
Temporary Restraining Order or, simply, an action for
Redemption.5 On January 25, 2002, the RTC rendered a
decision6 in favor of respondents, authorizing them to
redeem the subject lots from Springsun for the total price of
P9,790,612.00. On appeal to the CA, the appellate court
affirmed the RTC decision with a modification on the
award of attorney’s fees.7

_______________

4  Victoria sold the lots covered by TCT Nos. (289237) S-6135 and
(289236) S-35855 for P7, 223,799.00; and the lot covered by TCT No. S-
72244 for P2, 566,813.00.
5 Rollo, pp. 93-100.
6 Penned by Presiding Judge Alberto Lerma; id., at pp. 111-117.
7  Embodied in a Decision dated September 23, 2003; penned by
Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao, with Presiding Justice Cancio

486

486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

SM Systems Corporation vs. Camerino

Aggrieved, Springsun elevated the matter to this Court

via a petition for review on certiorari. The case was
docketed as G.R. No. 161029. On January 19, 2005, we
affirmed the CA Decision.8 With the denial of Springsun’s
motion for reconsideration, the same became final and
executory; accordingly, an entry of judgment was made.9
Respondents thus moved for the execution of the
Decision.10
 Petitioner11 instituted an action for Annulment of
Judgment with prayer for the issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP
No. 90931.12 Petitioner sought the annulment of the RTC
decision allowing respondents to redeem the subject
property. Petitioner argued that it was deprived of the
opportunity to present its case on the ground of fraud,
manipulations and machinations of respondents. It further
claimed that the Department of Agrarian Reform, not the
RTC, had jurisdiction over the redemption case. The CA,
however, dismissed the petition on October 20, 2005.13 Its
motion for reconsideration was also denied for lack of
merit.14 The matter was elevated to this Court via a
petition for review on certiorari in G.R. No. 171754, but the

_______________

C. Garcia (now a retired member of this Court) and Associate Justice

Danilo B. Pine, concurring; id., at pp. 133-153.

8  Embodied in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Angelina

Sandoval-Gutierrez (ret.), with former Chief Justice Artemio V.
Panganiban and Associate Justices Renato C. Corona (now Chief Justice)
and Conchita Carpio-Morales, concurring; 489 Phil. 769, 449 SCRA 65
(2005).
9  Rollo, p. 64.
10 Id., at pp. 178-185.
11  At this point, Springsun already changed its name to SM Systems
Corporation, as shown in its Amended Articles of Incorporation.
12 Rollo, pp. 188-220.
13  Embodied in a Resolution penned by Associate Justice Arcangelita
M. Romilla-Lontok, with Associate Justices Marina L. Buzon and Danilo
B. Pine, concurring; id., at pp. 221-229.
14 Id., at p. 230.

487

VOL. 625, JULY 26, 2010 487

SM Systems Corporation vs. Camerino

same was denied on June 28, 2006.15 After the denial of its
motion for reconsideration, the Decision became final and
executory; and an entry of judgment was subsequently
made.16
Meanwhile, on December 18, 2003, respondents
executed an Irrevocable Power of Attorney in favor of
Mariano Nocom (Nocom), authorizing him, among other
things, to comply with our January 19, 2005 Decision by
paying the redemption price to Springsun and/or to the
court.17 Respondents, however, challenged the power of
attorney in an action for revocation with the RTC. In a
summary judgment, the RTC annulled the Irrevocable
Power of Attorney for being contrary to law and public
policy. The RTC explained that the power of attorney was a
disguised conveyance of the statutory right of redemption
that is prohibited under Republic Act No. 3844. The CA
affirmed the RTC decision. However, this Court, in G.R.
No. 182984, set aside the CA Decision and concluded that
the RTC erred in rendering the summary judgment. The
Court thus remanded the case to the RTC for proper
proceedings and proper disposition, according to the
rudiments of a regular trial on the merits and not through
an abbreviated termination of the case by summary
judgment.
On August 4, 2005, as petitioner refused to accept the
redemption amount of P9,790,612.00, plus P147,059.18 as
commission, respondents deposited the said amounts, duly
evidenced by official receipts, with the RTC. The RTC
further granted respondents’ motion for execution and,
consequently, TCT Nos. 120542, 120541, and 123872 in the
name of petitioner were cancelled and TCT Nos. 15895,
15896, and 15897 were issued in the names of respondents.
It also ordered that the “Irrevocable Power of Attorney,”
executed on December

_______________

15 Embodied in a Minute Resolution of the First Division; id., at p. 279.

16 Id., at p. 419.
17 Nocom v. Camerino, G.R. No. 182984, February 10, 2009, 578 SCRA
390.

488

488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

SM Systems Corporation vs. Camerino

18, 2003 by respondents in favor of Nocom, be annotated in

the memorandum of encumbrances of TCT Nos. 15895,
15896, and 15897.18
On August 20, 2005, petitioner and respondents (except
Oscar Camerino) executed a document, denominated as
Kasunduan,19 wherein the latter agreed to receive
P300,000.00 each from the former, as compromise
settlement. Petitioner then filed a Motion to Hold
Execution in Abeyance on the Ground of Supervening
Event.20
On September 7, 2005, the RTC denied petitioner’s
motion, thus:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, defendant’s Motion to

Hold in Abeyance Execution on Ground of Supervening Event is
denied and the Kasunduan separately entered into by Efren
Camerino, Cornelio Mantile, Domingo Enriquez[,] and the Heirs
of Nolasco del Rosario are hereby disapproved.
SO ORDERED.”21

Aggrieved by the aforesaid Order and the denial of its

motion for reconsideration, petitioner elevated the matter
to the CA. On May 8, 2006, counsel for respondents moved
that they be excused from filing the required comment,
considering that only Oscar Camerino was impleaded as
private respondent in the amended petition; and also
because respondents already transferred pendente lite their
contingent rights over the case in favor of Nocom.22 Nocom,
in turn, filed a Motion for Leave of Court to Admit
Attached Comment to the Petition.23
On October 23, 2006, the appellate court rendered the
assailed Decision, finding petitioner guilty of forum
shopping.

_______________

18 Id., at p. 397.
19 Rollo, pp. 869-875.
20 Id., at pp. 431-436.
21 Id., at p. 458.
22 CA Rollo, pp. 171-174.
23 Id., at pp. 175-218.

489

VOL. 625, JULY 26, 2010 489

SM Systems Corporation vs. Camerino

The CA concluded that the present case was

substantially similar to G.R. No. 171754. It further held
that the compromise agreement could not novate the
Court’s earlier Decision in G.R. No. 161029 because only
four out of five parties executed the agreement.
Undaunted, petitioner comes before us in this petition
for review on certiorari, raising the following issues:

1. Whether or not the Kasunduan effectively novated the judgment

obligation.
2. Whether or not the Court should rule on the Motion to Expunge
the Comment of Mariano Nocom filed by the Petitioner.
3. Whether or not Mariano Nocom should be allowed to participate
in the instant case on the basis of the null and void Irrevocable
Power of Attorney.
4. Whether or not the (sic) there is grave abuse of discretion when
Judge Lerma denied the Motion to inhibit filed by Petitioner
 despite Judge Lerma’s clear showing of partiality for the other
party.
5. Whether or not there is forum-shopping.24

Contrary to the conclusion of the CA, we find petitioner

not guilty of forum shopping.
Forum shopping is the act of a litigant who repetitively
avails of several judicial remedies in different courts,
simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded
on the same transactions and on the same essential facts
and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same
issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by
some other court, to increase his chances of obtaining a
favorable decision if not in one court, then in another.25

_______________

24 Rollo, pp. 1090-1091.

25  Briones v. Henson-Cruz, G.R. No. 159130, August 22, 2008, 563
SCRA 69, 84.

490

490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

SM Systems Corporation vs. Camerino

The rationale against forum shopping is that a party

should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in
two different fora. Filing multiple petitions or complaints
constitutes abuse of court processes, which tends to
degrade the administration of justice, wreaks havoc upon
orderly judicial procedure, and adds to the congestion of the
heavily burdened dockets of the courts. Thus, the rule
proscribing forum shopping seeks to promote candor and
transparency among lawyers and their clients in the
pursuit of their cases before the courts to promote the
orderly administration of justice, to prevent undue
inconvenience upon the other party, and to save the
precious time of the courts. It also aims to prevent the
embarrassing situation of two or more courts or agencies
rendering conflicting resolutions or decisions upon the
same issue.26
To determine whether a party violated the rule against
forum shopping, the most important question to ask is
whether the elements of litis pendentia are present or
whether a final judgment in one case will result to res
judicata in another.27
It is true that after the finality of this Court’s Decision
in G.R. No. 161029 dated January 19, 2005, petitioner
instituted and filed various petitions and motions which
essentially prevented the execution of the aforesaid
Decision. Yet, we do not agree with the CA that the instant
case is dismissible because it earlier filed an action for
annulment of judgment that involved substantially the
same set of facts, issues, and reliefs sought. While
petitioner’s goal in filing the instant case is the same as
that in G.R. No. 171754 (which stemmed from the petition
for annulment of judgment), that is to prevent the
execution of the January 19, 2005 Decision, still, there is no
forum shopping.

_______________

26  Huibonhoa v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 153785, August 3, 2006, 497

SCRA 562, 570.
27 Id.

491

VOL. 625, JULY 26, 2010 491

SM Systems Corporation vs. Camerino

In the action for annulment of judgment, petitioner

sought the nullification of the January 19, 2005 Decision on
the ground that it was deprived of its opportunity to
present its case and that the RTC had no jurisdiction to
decide the case. While in the instant case, petitioner prays
that the execution of the January 19, 2005 Decision be held
in abeyance in view of the compromise agreement entered
into by petitioner and four respondents. In short, the issue
threshed out in the annulment case was the validity of the
2005 Decision, while in this case, the issue is focused on the
effect of the compromise agreement entered into after the
finality of the Decision sought to be executed. Clearly,
therefore, there is no identity of issues in the two cases.
In view of the foregoing, a review of the assailed
Decision is in order, particularly on the effect of the
compromise agreement entered into after final judgment
has been rendered.
Once a case is terminated by final judgment, the rights
of the parties are settled; hence, a compromise agreement
is no longer necessary.28 Though it may not be prudent to
do so, we have seen in a number of cases that parties still
considered and had, in fact, executed such agreement. To
be sure, the parties may execute a compromise agreement
even after the finality of the decision.29 A reciprocal
concession inherent in a compromise agreement assures
benefits for the contracting parties. For the defeated
litigant, obvious is the advantage of a compromise after
final judgment as the liability decreed by the judgment
may be reduced. As to the prevailing party, it assures
receipt of payment because litigants are sometimes
deprived of their winnings because of unscrupulous
mechanisms meant to delay or evade the execution of a
final judgment.30

_______________

28 Magbanua v. Uy, 497 Phil. 511; 458 SCRA 134 (2005).

29  Cosmos Bottling Corporation v. Nagrama, Jr., G.R. No. 164403,
March 4, 2008, 547 SCRA 571.
30 Magbanua v. Uy, supra note 28, at 196.

492

492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

SM Systems Corporation vs. Camerino

As much as we would like to settle the issues raised in

this petition, we cannot make a definitive conclusion on the
validity of the compromise agreement because of some facts
that complicate the present case.
We must recall that, in our January 19, 2005 Decision,
we upheld respondents’ right to redeem the subject lots for
P9, 790,612.00. On December 18, 2003, respondents
executed an Irrevocable Power of Attorney in favor of
Nocom, authorizing him to redeem the subject lots.
Pursuant to the aforesaid authority, Nocom deposited with
the court the redemption money plus commission on
August 4, 2005. Consequently, the certificates of title in the
name of petitioner were cancelled, and new ones were
issued in the name of respondents. It was only on August
20, 2005 that petitioner and respondents executed the
Kasunduan or the compromise agreement. Although we
could have easily declared that the agreement was invalid
as there was nothing more to compromise at that time with
the redemption of the property by Nocom, yet, as narrated
earlier, respondents assailed in a separate case the validity
of the Irrevocable Power of Attorney allegedly executed by
them in favor of Nocom. The case had reached this Court in
G.R. No. 182984, but we remanded it to the RTC of
Muntinlupa City, Branch 203, for further proceedings and
in accordance with the rudiments of a regular trial, with
the instruction not to dispose of the case through a
summary judgment.
The Court notes that respondents herein are the
farmers-tenants, but records show that the pleadings in
answer to the petition were filed by Nocom for and in his
own behalf. Nocom is actively participating herein on the
basis of the questioned Irrevocable Power of Attorney. But
to date, the authority of Nocom to exercise the right of
redemption is still in issue in a separate case.
 With the foregoing discussion, the resolution of the
issues herein have to be held in abeyance, pending the
settlement of
493

VOL. 625, JULY 26, 2010 493

SM Systems Corporation vs. Camerino

the questions raised in the other action.31 We are not

unmindful of the right of every party to a speedy
disposition of his case,32 but the rights of the parties herein
cannot be properly determined until the resolution of the
issues in the other action.
The court in which an action is pending may, in the
exercise of sound discretion, hold the action in abeyance to
abide by the outcome of another case pending in another
court.33 Undeniably, the power to stay proceedings is an
incident to the power inherent in every court to control the
disposition of the cases on its dockets, considering its time
and effort, and those of counsel and litigants.34 Every order
suspending proceedings must be guided by the following
precepts: it shall be done in order to avoid multiplicity of
suits and to prevent vexatious litigations, conflicting
judgments, confusion between litigants and courts, or when
the rights of parties to the second action cannot be properly
determined until the questions raised in the first action are
settled.35
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the resolution of
this petition is hereby SUSPENDED or HELD IN
ABEYANCE until after the proceedings in Civil Case No.
05-172 shall have been terminated.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Regional
Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 203, where the
above-cited case is pending. The said court is hereby
directed to resolve the case pending before it with
dispatch. 

_______________

31 Before the RTC of Muntinlupa City, Branch 203.

32 SM Prime Holdings, Inc. v. Madayag, G.R. No. 164687, February 12,
2009, 578 SCRA 552, 558.
33  Magestrado v. People, G.R. No. 148072, July 10, 2007, 527 SCRA
125.
34 SM Prime Holdings, Inc. v. Madayag, supra note 32, at 557-558; id.,
at p. 141.
35 SM Prime Holdings, Inc. v. Madayag, supra at 558.
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.