34. First Phil.

Intl Bank 252 SCRA 259

Producers Bank (now called First Philippine International Bank), which has been under
conservatorship since 1984, is the owner of 6 parcels of land. The Bank had an agreement
with Demetrio Demetria and Jose Janolo for the two to purchase the parcels of land for a
purchase price of P5.5 million pesos. The said agreement was made by Demetria and
Janolo with the Banks manager, Mercurio Rivera. Later however, the Bank, through its
conservator, Leonida Encarnacion, sought the repudiation of the agreement as it alleged
that Rivera was not authorized to enter into such an agreement, hence there was no valid
contract of sale. Subsequently, Demetria and Janolo sued Producers Bank. The regional
trial court ruled in favor of Demetria et al. The Bank filed an appeal with the Court of
Appeals.
Meanwhile, Henry Co, who holds 80% shares of stocks with the said Bank, filed a motion
for intervention with the trial court. The trial court denied the motion since the trial has been
concluded already and the case is now pending appeal. Subsequently, Co, assisted by
ACCRA law office, filed a separate civil case against Carlos Ejercito as successor-ininterest (assignee) of Demetria and Janolo seeking to have the purported contract of sale
be declared unenforceable against the Bank. Ejercito et al argued that the second case
constitutes forum shopping.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is forum shopping.
HELD: Yes. There is forum shopping because there is identity of interest and parties
between the first case and the second case. There is identity of interest because both cases
sought to have the agreement, which involves the same property, be declared
unenforceable as against the Bank. There is identity of parties even though the first case is
in the name of the bank as defendant, and the second case is in the name of Henry Co as
plaintiff. There is still forum shopping here because Henry Co essentially represents the
bank. Both cases aim to have the bank escape liability from the agreement it entered into
with Demetria et al.
The Supreme Court also discussed that to combat forum shopping, which originated as a
concept in international law, the principle of forum non conveniens was developed. The
doctrine of forum non conveniens provides that a court, in conflicts of law cases, may refuse
impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the most convenient or available forum and
the parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere