PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORP, petitioner vs

COURT OF APPEALS, WESTIN SEAFOOD MARKET INC., respondent

GR No. 123555, January 22, 1999

FACTS:

Petitioner, Progressive Development Corp, leased a parcel of land with a commercial

building to respondent, Westin Seafood Market Inc. Respondent failed to pay rentals
despite several demands of the petitioner, and thus, by virtue of the terms of their Lease
Agreement, petitioner repossessed the leased properties.

However, respondent filed with the MTC an action for forcible entry, the issuance of a
writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, and for damages against the petitioner. But,
pending the hearing for the preliminary injunction, the parties arrived at an agreement
among which is the respondent depositing the amount of the back rentals with the bank.

Respondent, however, failed to comply with the undertaking, and while the case for
forcible entry was still pending, Respondent instituted an action for damages against the
petitioner before the RTC. Petitioner field a motion to dismiss on the ground of litis
pendencia and forum shopping. The RTC dismissed the motion.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the action for damages filed by the respondent in the RTC against the
petitioner should be dismissed on the ground of the pendency of an action for forcible
entry and damages with the same parties before the MTC.

HELD:

Yes, the action for damages before the RTC should be dismissed.

The rules provide that actions for forcible entry shall include damages and costs for
dispossession. It is likewise a basic rule that a party may not institute more than one suit
for a single cause of action. And 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 other or others.

There is no question at all that private respondent's cause of action in the forcible entry
case and in the suit for damages is the alleged illegal retaking of possession of the
leased premises by the lessor, petitioner herein, from which all legal reliefs arise. Simply
stated, the restoration of possession and demand for actual damages in the case before
the MeTC and the demand for damages with the RTC both arise from the same cause
of action, i.e., the forcible entry by petitioner into the least premises. Thus, the case
shall be dismissed.