Dynamic Builders vs.

Presbitero

FACTS:

In 2005, the Bids and Awards of Valladolid, Negros Occidental 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 which attended by 6 prospective
contractors including Dynamic Builders. The award of contract was
affirmed to HLJ Construction. Post-evaluation examination shows that
Dynamic Builders fail in its Financial Contracting Capability. Dynamic
Builders lodge a formal protest with the head of procuring entity, Mayor
Presbitero to set aside the Committee decision. Mayor Presbitero
dismissed.

Pursuant to Art. XVII, Sec. 58 of R.A. No. 9184, the Government

Procurement Reform Act, Dynamic Builders filed the Petition for
Certiorari before the RTC assailing Mayor Presbitero’s Decision.
Presbitero countered that petitioner grossly violated the rules against
splitting a single cause of action, multiplicity of suits, and forum shopping.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Dynamic Builders violated the rules against the splitting of
a cause of action, multiplicity of suits, and forum shopping.

HELD:

Rule 2, sec. 3 of the Rules of Court provides that “ a party may not
institute more than one suit for a single cause of action.” Moreover, sec. 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 the separate courts.
This violates the rule against forum shopping.

Rule 7, Sec. 5 of the Rules of Court