2/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

VOL. 513, JANUARY 31, 2007 457

Public Interest Center, Inc. vs. Roxas

*
G.R. No. 125509. January 31, 2007.

PUBLIC INTEREST CENTER, INC., LAUREANO T.

ANGELES, and JOCELYN P. CELESTINO, petitioners, vs.
HONORABLE VICENTE Q. ROXAS, in his capacity as
Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,
Branch 227, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, WESTINGHOUSE
ELECTRIC CORPORATION, WESTINGHOUSE
ELECTRIC S.A., WESTINGHOUSE INTERNATIONAL
PROJECTS COMPANY, respondents.

Remedial Law; Actions; Parties; Definition of Legal Standing

or Locus Standi.—In Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora,

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

458

458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Public Interest Center, Inc. vs. Roxas

338 SCRA 81 (2000), this Court defined legal standing as follows:

“Legal standing” or locus standi has been defined as a personal
and substantial interest in the case such that the party has
sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the
governmental act that is being challenged. The term
“interest” means a material interest, an interest in issue affected
by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the question
involved, or a mere incidental interest. The gist of the question
of standing is whether a party alleges “such personal stake
in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016915245694bce79600003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/22
2/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of

issues upon which the court depends for illumination of
difficult constitutional questions.”

Same; Same; Same; To invest him with locus standi, the

plaintiff has to adequately show that he is entitled to judicial
protection and has a sufficient interest in the vindication of the
asserted public right.—In public suits, the plaintiff, representing
the general public, asserts a “public right” in assailing an
allegedly illegal official action. The plaintiff may be a person who
is affected no differently from any other person, and could be
suing as a “stranger,” or as a “citizen” or “taxpayer.” To invest him
with locus standi, the plaintiff has to adequately show that he is
entitled to judicial protection and has a sufficient interest in the
vindication of the asserted public right.

Same; Same; Same; In case of taxpayers’ suits, the party suing

as a taxpayer must prove that he has sufficient interest in
preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation.—In
the case of taxpayers’ suits, the party suing as a taxpayer must
prove that he has sufficient interest in preventing the illegal
expenditure of money raised by taxation. Thus, taxpayers have
been allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds are
illegally disbursed or that public money is being deflected to any
improper purpose, or that public funds are wasted through the
enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law. More
particularly, the taxpayer must establish that he has a personal
and substantial interest in the case and that he has sustained or
will sustain direct injury as a result of its enforcement or that he
stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the case, or is
entitled to the avails of the suit.

459

VOL. 513, JANUARY 31, 2007 459

Public Interest Center, Inc. vs. Roxas

Same; Same; Forum Shopping; Elements for Forum Shopping

to Exist.—As explained by this Court in First Philippine
International Bank v. Court of Appeals, forum shopping exists
where the elements of litis pendentia are present, and where a
final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the
other. Thus, there is forum shopping when, between an action
pending before this Court and another one, there exist: “a)
identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same
interests in both actions, b) identity of rights asserted and relief

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016915245694bce79600003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/22
2/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts, and c) the
identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any
judgment rendered in the other action, will, regardless of which
party is successful amount to res judicata in the action under
consideration; said requisites also constitutive of the requisites for
auter action pendant or lis pendens.” . . . [W]here a litigant sues
the same party against whom another action or actions for the
alleged violation of the same right and the enforcement of the
same relief is/are still pending, the defense of litis pendentia in
one case is a bar to the others; and, a final judgment in one would
constitute res judicata and thus would cause the dismissal of the
rest.”

Same; Same; Same; In a suit brought by citizens and

taxpayers to determine a public right or a matter of public interest,
all citizens and taxpayers are regarded as parties to the
proceedings by representation and are bound by the judgment
rendered therein.—The general principle of class actions that a
judgment in favor of or against the parties representing the
general class is, under the doctrine of res judicata, in favor of or
against all who are thus represented applies to litigations
instituted by taxpayers. Accordingly, in a suit brought by citizens
and taxpayers to determine a public right or a matter of public
interest, all citizens and taxpayers are regarded as parties to the
proceedings by representation and are bound by the judgment
rendered therein.

Same; Same; Same; Identity of parties needed to satisfy the

requirement in lis pendens or res judicata requires only an identity
of interest, not a literal identity of parties.—It is to no avail that
petitioners invoke lack of identity of parties. For petitioners in the
first set of cases and in the instant case are suing under a
common or general interest on a subject matter in a
representative capacity, for the benefit of all taxpayers as a class.
As this Court has repeatedly ruled, identity of parties needed to
satisfy the requirement in lis

460

460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Public Interest Center, Inc. vs. Roxas

pendens or res judicata requires only an identity of interest, not a

literal identity of parties.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016915245694bce79600003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/22
2/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

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.
     Patricia Galang for petitioners.
     Gilberto D. Gallos for respondent WIPCO.
     Ramon S. Dino for respondent intervenors.

CARPIO-MORALES, J.:

Challenged via petition for certiorari is the Quezon City

Regional Trial Court’s Resolution dated April 17, 1996
dismissing the Complaint of Public Interest Center, Inc.,
Laureano T. Angeles and Jocelyn P. Celestino (petitioners)
in Civil Case No. Q-95-25597, and Order dated June 18,
1996, denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
The antecedent facts, as culled from the records of the
case, are as follows:
On February 9, 1976, respondent National Power
Corporation (NPC) entered into a contract (the Contract)
with respondent Westinghouse Electric S.A. (WESA), an
affiliate or subsidiary of respondent Westinghouse Electric
Corporation (WESTINGHOUSE), whereby WESA
undertook to construct in favor of the NPC a 620-megawatt
nuclear power plant at Morong, Bataan and 1
to supply
equipment, machineries and services therefor.
WESA subsequently executed a deed of assignment
transferring all its rights and responsibilities in the
Contract to its construction arm-agent, respondent 2
Westinghouse International Projects Company (WIPCO).

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 128, 160.

2 Id., at p. 129.

461

VOL. 513, JANUARY 31, 2007 461

Public Interest Center, Inc. vs. Roxas

In 1986, President Corazon Aquino issued Executive Order

(E.O.) No. 55, which was later amended by E.O. No. 98,
transferring ownership of the already constructed power
plant, which had become known as the Bataan Nuclear
Power Plant (BNPP), its equipment, materials and
facilities, records and uranium fuel, to 3the National
Government or its duly constituted agency. Pursuant to
E.O. No. 55, as amended, the National Government
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016915245694bce79600003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/22
2/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

assumed all remaining foreign and local obligations

incurred
4
by the NPC in financing the construction of the
BNPP.
In 1988, the Aquino administration instituted a
complaint against WESTINGHOUSE in New Jersey,
U.S.A. Westinghouse5 later filed an arbitration case in
Geneva, Switzerland.
On September 27, 1995, President Fidel Ramos
authorized the following government officials as members
of a Government Panel to conduct exploratory discussions
with WESTINGHOUSE for the possible settlement of
pending legal proceedings:6
Chief Presidential Legal
Counsel Antonio T. Carpio, Solicitor General Raul T. Goco,
Assistant Secretary Cyril Del Callar, General 7Counsel
Alberto L. Pangcog, and Counsel Mark Augenblick.
Subsequently or on October 4, 1995, President Ramos
issued E.O. No. 265, which amended E.O. No. 315 dated
January 1, 1988, creating the Presidential Committee on
the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (PC-BNPP Committee).

_______________

3 Id., at pp. 230-231; Section 1, E.O. 55 as amended.

4 Id., at p. 231; Section 2, E.O. 55 as amended.
5 Id., at p. 132.
6 Now Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
7 Rollo, p. 146.

462

462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Public Interest Center, Inc. vs. Roxas

8
E.O. No. 265 provided that the PC-BNPP Committee “shall
be the coordinating and policy-making body on the BNPP,
including policies arising from negotiations for a fair
commercial settlement of all pending legal claims that will
provide a substantial net benefit to the country,” which
“shall submit its recommendations9 on BNPP-related
policies to the President for approval.”
On October 11, 1995, the PC-BNPP Committee issued a
“Resolution Adopting The Essential Terms And Conditions
Arrived At By The Government Panel And Westinghouse
Representatives During The Exploratory Discussions From
September 29, 1995 To October 9, 1995 For A Compromise
Settlement Of The BNPP Controversy And Favorably
Recommending Approval Thereof To His Excellency, The
President,” the salient points of which Resolution follow:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016915245694bce79600003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/22
2/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

“x x x x
NOTING that after a series of talks which started on
September 29, 1995, the government panel and Westinghouse
representatives (Mr. Briskman and Mr. Robert Gross) on October
9, 1995, eventually agreed in principle on a settlement involving a
package of more than $100 MILLION, consisting of the following:

(1) $40 Million in cash (transferable by wire to a bank

account specified by the Republic)
(2) Two (2) newly manufactured 501-F Econopac combustion
turbines, FOB Houston, at 160 MW each or a total of 320
MW valued at $30 Million each, or a total of $60 Million

_______________

8 The BNPP Committee shall be composed of the Secretary of Energy as

Chairman, the Secretary of Finance as Vice-Chairman, and as members,
the Secretary of Budget and Management, Secretary of Trade and
Industry, Chairman of the Presidential Commission on Good Government,
Governor of Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, Solicitor General, President of
the NPC and President of the Philippine National Oil Company (Sec. 2,
E.O. No. 265, x. or 1995).
9 Id., at p. 147; Section 1, E.O. 265.

463

VOL. 513, JANUARY 31, 2007 463

Public Interest Center, Inc. vs. Roxas

(3) Relinquishment by Westinghouse of the right to recover

more than $200,000 in attorney’s fees previously awarded
by the New Jersey court.

NOTING that in exchange for the foregoing cash and utilities, the
parties would secure a dismissal with prejudice of the pending
lawsuits, appeals and arbitration between the Republic and
National Power Corporation, on one hand, and Westinghouse, its
affiliates and Burns & Roe, on the other hand, involving the
BNPP controversy and that the Republic would direct National
Power Corporation and other government agencies to lift the ban
against Westinghouse equipment and technology;
xxxx
OBSERVING that the present offer of Westinghouse of $40
Million in cash plus two (2) 501-F’s worth $60 Million represents
the highest cash offer (since its $10 Million cash offer in 1992) and
the most advantageous in kind offer (no discount/rebate
component or any corresponding obligation on the side of the
Republic);
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016915245694bce79600003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/22
2/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

HAVING IN MIND the uncertainty of the results of the

arbitration, the possibility that some of Westinghouse’s
counterclaims may partly offset any recovery, the prospect that
even a favorable arbitration award could be limited to the $40
million cap under the original BNPP contract and that even if the
government eventually wins the appeal of the New Jersey verdict,
substantial costs would have to be incurred to pursue a new trial,
which result is also uncertain;
RECOGNIZING that the present offer of Westinghouse will
result in greater net economic benefits to the Republic than any
previous settlement offer;
xxxx
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS IT IS HEREBY
RESOLVED that PC-BNPP, with the endorsement of the
Republic’s lawyers and negotiating panel, adopts the foregoing
essential terms of the settlement agreement and respectfully
recommends to His Excellency, 10President Fidel V. Ramos, the
acceptance and approval thereof.” (Italics supplied)

_______________

10 Id., at pp. 150-152.

464

464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Public Interest Center, Inc. vs. Roxas

On October 13, 1995, the Settlement Agreement reflected

in the above-questioned Resolution of the PC-BNPP was
forged by the Republic and NPC on one hand, 11
and
respondent Westinghouse corporations on the other.
On November 14, 1995, petitioners, as taxpayers, filed
with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City a
Complaint against herein private respondents, for
declaration of nullity of the BNPP contract with application
for the issuance of a12 temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction.
Herein public respondent, Branch 227 of the Quezon
City RTC, set the hearing of petitioners’ application for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order on November 28,
1995 on which date only petitioners and respondents
Republic and NPC appeared. No representative of the
Westinghouse corporations having showed up, public
respondent directed petitioners to secure a certification
from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 13
on
who the resident agent, if any, of said corporations was.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016915245694bce79600003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/22
2/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

On the same scheduled date of hearing, the Solicitor

General, on behalf of respondents Republic and NPC,
moved for the dismissal of the Complaint on the ground
that petitioners were engaged in forum-shopping, their
counsel
14
Atty. Crispin T. Reyes having previously filed
cases with causes of action identical thereto.
While Atty. Reyes did not deny having previously filed,
in Manila, a complaint, he argued that he was not among
the plaintiffs in the complaint filed in Quezon City.
Nevertheless,

_______________

11 Id., at p. 134.
12 Id., at pp. 106-124.
13 Id., at pp. 37-38.
14 “Anti-Graft League of the Philippines, Inc., et al. v. Westinghouse
Electric Corp., et al.,” Civil Case No. 93-66916, Regional Trial Court,
Manila; “Anti-Graft League of the Philippines, Inc., et al., v. Hon. Edilberto
G. Sandoval, et al.,” Court of Appeals, Manila.

465

VOL. 513, JANUARY 31, 2007 465

Public Interest Center, Inc. vs. Roxas

he withdrew 15
as counsel for the plaintiffs – herein
petitioners.
On December
16
4, 1995, petitioners filed an Amended
Complaint praying for the following reliefs:

“WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed [that]:

xxxx

(2) after due hearing, a preliminary mandatory injunction

issue upon a bond executed to the party enjoined in an
amount to be fixed by the court ordering defendants
National Power Corporation and the Republic of the
Philippines to stop and/or not to perform further
implementation/execution of their obligation/undertaking
under the null and void [B]NPP Nuclear Plant Contract
between the National Power Corporation and
Westinghouse executed on February 9, 1976 in Manila,
Philippines; likewise, from further continuing the
payments for the contracted loans/interest based thereon
unless otherwise securitized; and also from further
implementing/executing their undertaking/obligations
under the Settlement Agreement between Republic of the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016915245694bce79600003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/22
2/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

Philippines-National Power Corporation and

Westinghouse negotiated on October 9, 1995 and allegedly
executed on October 13, 1995;
(3) after hearing on the merits, judgment be rendered
declaring the [B]NPP Nuclear Plant Contract executed on
February 9, 1976 in Manila and all amendments thereto,
together with the loan contracts based thereon, as well as
the Settlement Agreement executed on October 13, 1995 by
defendant Republic of the Philippines/NAPOCOR with
Westinghouse, as inexistent and void ab initio;
(4) ordering defendants NAPOCOR and the REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES to reconvey/turn over the [B]NPP
Nuclear Plant equipment and machineries to defendant
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION and/or
its corporate agents and to restitute or refund to the former
all payments paid for the [B]NPP Nuclear Plant to said
Westinghouse, with legal interest from the filing of this
complaint;

_______________

15 Id., at p. 38.
16 Id., at pp. 125-145.

466

466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Public Interest Center, Inc. vs. Roxas

(5) making the preliminary mandatory injunction permanent,

and ordering defendant jointly and severally to pay
plaintiffs reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Article
2208 (2) and (11), Civil Code of the Philippines, with costs
against defendants; . . .” (Italics supplied)

In essence, the Amended Complaint assailed the validity of

and sought to nullify the following contracts:

(a) The BNPP Contract;

(b) The loan contracts entered into by the Republic and
NPC to finance the construction of the BNPP; and
(c) The Settlement Agreement entered into by the
Republic and NPC with Westinghouse on October
13, 1995 in settlement of the claims arising from
the Contract.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016915245694bce79600003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/22
2/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

The Republic filed a Motion to Dismiss (With Opposition 17

to
the Application for Preliminary Mandatory Injunction) to
petitioners’ Amended Complaint on the following grounds:
(a) lis pendens and/or forum-shopping; (b) lack of legal
capacity18
of petitioners to sue; and (c) lack of cause of
action.
For its part, the NPC filed its Comment/Motion
19
To
Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, alleging that the
Amended Complaint failed to state a cause of action
against it.
By Order of January 25, 1996, public respondent
directed, among other things, petitioners and20
the Republic
and NPC to file their respective memoranda.
On February 26, 1996, petitioners, in compliance with
public respondent’s order, filed a manifestation that per
certification of the SEC, the new resident agent of WIPCO
was AC-

_______________

17 Id., at pp. 159-171.

18 Id., at p. 159.
19 Id., at pp. 229-239.
20 Id., at pp. 262-263.

467

VOL. 513, JANUARY 31, 2007 467

Public Interest Center, Inc. vs. Roxas

CRA Agents, Inc. Summons was thereupon served upon

AC-CRA Agents, Inc. 21
WIPCO soon filed a Motion to Dismiss petitioners’
Amended Complaint on the following grounds: (a)
petitioners have no legal capacity to sue; (b) the Amended
Complaint states no cause of action; and (c) assuming the
existence of a cause of action, the same is nonetheless
barred by the statute of limitations.
By the assailed Resolution of April 17, 1996, public
respondent DISMISSED petitioners’ complaint, holding as
follows:

“x x x x

I. that, with respect to the first cause of action

(i) plaintiffs have violated Supreme Court Administrative

Circular 04-94, otherwise known as the Anti-Forum

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016915245694bce79600003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/22
2/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

Shopping Rule, which carries with it, among others, the

penalty of dismissal of the action;

II. that, with respect to the second cause of action,

(i) this Court has no territorial jurisdiction over foreign and

international bodies situated abroad, more so, if such
bodies are foreign and international courts;
(ii) this Court has no original and exclusive jurisdiction over
the issue of invalidating compromise agreements entered
into in foreign and international courts to settle foreign
lawsuits pending before such foreign and international
courts;
(iii) this Court has no jurisdiction to enjoin court proceedings
relative to the compromise agreement entered into in
foreign and international courts to settle pending foreign
lawsuits;
(iv) the application for preliminary mandatory injunction of
plaintiffs is denied for lack of merit . . .
(v) the second cause of action did not allege constitutional,
public interest, and judicial policy issues so as to qualify
plaintiffs under the relaxed rule, as having standing, . . .

_______________

21 Id., at pp. 243-249.

468

468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Public Interest Center, Inc. vs. Roxas

(vi) this Court has not acquired jurisdiction over the persons of
foreign defendants WELCO and WESA. . . (Italics
supplied)

Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration of public

respondent’s Resolution dismissing their complaint having
been denied by the other assailed Order of June 18, 1996,
they filed the present Petition for Certiorari and
Mandamus With Application for A Writ Of Preliminary
Injunction And Prayer For A Temporary Restraining Order
directly with this Court in view of the “transcendental
importance” of the issues involved.
Petitioners contend that in dismissing their Amended
Complaint, public respondent abdicated its constitutional
duty to exercise judicial review over the validity of the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016915245694bce79600003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/22
2/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

BNPP Contract, the loan contracts, and the 1995

Settlement Agreement.
Petitioners further contend that, contrary to the finding
of public respondent, petitioners did not commit forum
shopping since there is no identity of parties and causes of
action in the instant case and in the complaint filed before
the Manila RTC.
Finally, petitioners contend that they have sufficiently
established that the injury caused to them by the contracts
are “actual, direct and immediate” to thus clothe them with
standing.
The Solicitor General and WIPCO, opposing the petition,
argue that no grave abuse of discretion attended the
issuance by public respondent of the assailed resolutions
considering that, among other things, petitioners are guilty
of forum shopping; petitioners have no legal standing; and
the propriety of entering into a settlement agreement
involves a political question and is not subject to judicial
review.
The issues then are:

(1) Whether petitioners have legal standing;

469

VOL. 513, JANUARY 31, 2007 469

Public Interest Center, Inc. vs. Roxas

(2) Whether petitioners are engaged in forumshopping;

(3) Whether the validity of the Contract and the
contracts of loan entered into by the Republic and
NPC with foreign banks to finance the construction
of the BNPP, and the propriety of entering into a
Settlement Agreement are subject to judicial
review; and
(4) Whether courts may set aside a final judgment
rendered by a foreign court.

Legal Standing
22
In Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, this Court
defined legal standing as follows:

‘ “Legal standing” or locus standi has been defined as a personal

and substantial interest in the case such that the party has
sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016915245694bce79600003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/22
2/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

governmental act that is being challenged. The term

“interest” means a material interest, an interest in issue affected
by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the question
involved, or a mere incidental interest. The gist of the question
of standing is whether a party alleges “such personal stake
in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that
concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of
issues upon which the court depends for illumination of
difficult constitutional questions.” ’ (Citations omitted;
emphasis supplied)

In public suits, the plaintiff, representing the general

public, asserts a “public right” in assailing an allegedly
illegal official action. The plaintiff may be a person who is
affected no differently from any other person, and could be
suing as a “stranger,” or as a “citizen” or “taxpayer.” To
invest him with

_______________

22 G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000, 338 SCRA 81; Vide Francisco, Jr.
v. Nagmamalasakit na mga Manananggol ng mga Manggagawang
Pilipino, Inc., G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003, 415 SCRA 44.

470

470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Public Interest Center, Inc. vs. Roxas

locus standi, the plaintiff has to adequately show that he is

entitled to judicial protection and has a sufficient
23
interest
in the vindication of the asserted public right.
In the case of taxpayers’ suits, the party suing as a
taxpayer must prove that he has sufficient interest in
preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by
taxation. Thus, taxpayers have been allowed to sue where
there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed or
that public money is being deflected to any improper
purpose, or that public funds are wasted through 24
the
enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law.
More particularly, the taxpayer must establish that he
has a personal and substantial interest in the case and that
he has sustained25 or will sustain direct injury as a result of
its enforcement or that he stands to be benefited or
injured by the judgment
26
in the case, or is entitled to the
avails of the suit.
Petitioners’ allegations in their Amended Complaint
that the loan contracts entered into by the Republic and
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016915245694bce79600003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/22
2/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

NPC are serviced or paid through a disbursement of public

funds are not disputed by respondents, hence, they are
invested with personality to institute the same.

_______________

23 Vide: David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006, 489

SCRA 160.
24 Del Mar v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, 400
Phil. 307; 346 SCRA 485 (2000) citing Kilosbayan, Inc., et al. v. Morato, et
al., 320 Phil. 171; 246 SCRA 540 (1995); Dumlao v. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No. L-52245, January 22, 1980; 95 SCRA 392; Sanidad v.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 44640, October 12, 1976, 23 SCRA 333;
Philconsa v. Mathay, 124 Phil. 890; 18 SCRA 300 (1966); Pascual v. Sec. of
Public Works, 110 Phil. 331 (1960).
25 Gonzales v. Narvasa, 392 Phil. 518; 337 SCRA 733 (2000) citing
People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 50 (1937).
26 Gonzales v. Narvasa, supra, citing Section 2, Rule 3, Rules of Court
and Board of Optometry v. Colet, 328 Phil. 1187; 260 SCRA 88 (1996).

471

VOL. 513, JANUARY 31, 2007 471

Public Interest Center, Inc. vs. Roxas

Forum Shopping

Forum shopping exists when, as a result of an adverse

opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion
(other than by appeal or certiorari) in another, or when he
institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on
the same cause, on the gamble that27 one or the other court
would make a favorable disposition.

“As explained by this Court in First Philippine International Bank

v. Court of Appeals, forum shopping exists where the elements of
litis pendentia are present, and where a final judgment in one
case will amount to res judicata in the other. Thus, there is forum
shopping when, between an action pending before this Court and
another one, there exist: “a) identity of parties, or at least such
parties as represent the same interests in both actions, b) identity
of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on
the same facts, and c) the identity of the two preceding particulars
is such that any judgment rendered in the other action, will,
regardless of which party is successful amount to res judicata in
the action under consideration; said requisites also constitutive of

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016915245694bce79600003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/22
2/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

the requisites for auter action pendant or lis pendens.” . . . [W]here

a litigant sues the same party against whom another action or
actions for the alleged violation of the same right and the
enforcement of the same relief is/are still pending, the defense of
litis pendentia in one case is a bar to the others; and, a final
judgment in one would constitute 28
res judicata and thus would
cause the dismissal of the rest.”

In determining whether forum shopping exists, it is

important to consider the vexation caused the courts and
partieslitigants by a party who asks different courts and/or
administrative agencies to rule on the same or related
causes and/or

_______________

27 Municipality of Taguig v. Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142619,

September 13, 2005, 469 SCRA 588 citing Rudecon v. Singson, G.R. No.
150798, March 31, 2005, 454 SCRA 612; Chemphil Export and Import
Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 321 Phil. 619; 251 SCRA 257 (1995).
28 Prubankers Association v. Prudential Bank & Trust Company, 361
Phil. 744; 302 SCRA 74 (1999).

472

472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Public Interest Center, Inc. vs. Roxas

grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the

process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions 29
being rendered by the different fora upon the same issues.
In the present case, it is evident that, vis-à-vis the
abovementioned complaint filed in Manila, there exists
identity of parties or interests represented, as well as
identity of rights or causes of action and reliefs sought.
Thus, the first complaint which was instituted before
the Manila RTC by the Anti-Graft 30
League of the
Philippines, et al. as taxpayers’ suit, “Anti-Graft League of
the Philippines, Inc., et al. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., et
al.,” docketed as Civil Case No. 93-66916, sought to declare
null and void the Contract, as well as the same loan
contracts entered into by herein respondents Republic and
NPC with foreign banks, and to restrain said respondents
from making
31
further payments in compliance with the loan
contracts.
It appears that the first complaint was 32
dismissed by the
Manila RTC upon a motion to dismiss. It further appears
that instead of filing an appeal, the therein petitioners
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016915245694bce79600003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/22
2/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

AntiGraft League of the Philippines, Inc. et al. filed a

petition for certiorari with this Court,
33
which was dismissed
by Resolution dated March 1, 1995, and that thereafter 34
or
on July 12, 1995, they filed a petition for mandamus with
the Court of Appeals praying for the following reliefs:

“. . . that a temporary restraining order be ISSUED exparte

enjoining respondent NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION
and the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES from pay-

_______________

29 Municipality of Taguig vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, supra, citing First

Philippine International Bank vs. Court of Appeals, 322 Phil. 280; 252 SCRA 259
(1996).
30 Rollo, p. 172.
31 Id., at p. 183.
32 Id., at p. 193.
33 Id., at pp. 185-186.
34 Id., at pp. 187-228.

473

VOL. 513, JANUARY 31, 2007 473

Public Interest Center, Inc. vs. Roxas

ing the loans in question they contracted with respondent

banks and insurance companies for a period of TWENTY (20)
DAYS from date of issuance; that after notice to respondents and
within said period, said temporary restraining order be
CONVERTED into a preliminary injunction with bond as may be
fixed by the Court; that after hearing, judgment be RENDERED
making the preliminary injunction permanent and ordering
respondent court to reinstate Civil Case No. 93-66916 and to
declare respondents WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP.
(WELCO) and WESTINGHOUSE INTERNATIONAL PROJECTS
CO. (WIPCO), respondents foreign banks and insurances
companies IN DEFAULT . . .” (Emphasis supplied)

The above-said petition for mandamus was still pending

before the appellate court when herein petitioners filed
their complaint, later amended, before the Quezon City
RTC.
Petitioners do not deny that the first complaint and the
petition for mandamus (“first set of cases”) and their
complaint subject of the present petition involve the same
causes of action, are founded upon the same set of facts,
and are taxpayers’ suits. Nevertheless, they argue that the
first set of cases and the present case do not have identity
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016915245694bce79600003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/22
2/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

of parties since they were not among the petitioners in the

former.
Furthermore, petitioners assert that a taxpayer’s suit is
not a class suit, hence, judgment in one case does not
amount to res judicata in the other.
At all events, petitioners contend that there is no
absolute identity of causes of action since their Amended
Complaint includes the nullification of the Settlement
Agreement, which was not raised in the first set of cases.
Petitioner’s position does not impress.
A taxpayer’s action has been defined as follows:

‘A taxpayer’s bill is essentially a class bill and can be filed

only in the common interest of all the taxpayers of the
municipality, to prevent the wrongful expenditure of the money
of the municipality or the wasting of its assets.’ Schlanger v. West
Berwick Borough, 261 Pa. 605, 608, 104 A. 764. ‘A class bill, as
its

474

474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Public Interest Center, Inc. vs. Roxas

name implies, is a bill by several members of a class, on

behalf of themselves and all others in the class, and no relief
can be granted upon it, except upon a ground which is common to
all the members of the class. [Citing cases].’
35
Ashcom v. Westmont
Borough, 298 Pa. 203, 208, 148 A. 112, 114. (Emphasis supplied)
As to plaintiffs, both suits are brought by the plaintiff as a
citizen and taxpayer, besides as an individual, and
therefore they are taxpayer class actions. x x x,
In Holman v. Bridges, 165 Ga. 296(2), 140 S.E. 886, this court
held: “Where a taxpayer or property owner brings an action
against a county or its officers upon a matter of public or general
interest to all other taxpayers of such political subdivision, and
the action either expressly or by necessary implication is on their
behalf, they are equally bound by the adjudication, and a
judgment is a bar to any subsequent proceeding by them
or any
36
of them seeking similar relief upon the same facts. x
x x” (Emphasis supplied)

The general principle of class actions that a judgment in

favor of or against the parties representing the general
class is, under the doctrine of res judicata, in favor of or
against all who are thus represented applies to litigations
instituted by taxpayers.
Accordingly, in a suit brought by citizens and taxpayers
to determine a public right or a matter of public interest,
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016915245694bce79600003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/22
2/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

all citizens and taxpayers are regarded as parties to the

proceedings by representation
37
and are bound by the
judgment rendered therein.

“The plaintiff there was another taxpayer of the city, suing in the
status of ‘citizen and taxpayer,’ and the city itself was a
codefendant. The action was instituted September 3, 1958. The
first count of the complaint, Inter alia, charged the affiliation
agreement here in question to be ‘void, illegal and of no effect
because the City

_______________

35 Gericke v. City of Philadelphia, 353 Pa. 60, 44 A.2d 233 (1945).

36 Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta v. Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc., 220
Ga 192, 137 S.E. 2d 647 (1964).
37 74 Am Jur 2d, Taxpayer’s Actions, sec. 62.

475

VOL. 513, JANUARY 31, 2007 475

Public Interest Center, Inc. vs. Roxas

ignored the requirements of the ‘local budget law,’ N.J.S. 40:2-1 et

seq., particularly 40:2-29 and the law pertaining to municipal
contracts, particularly 40:50-6, as to the necessity for either
budgeting the contract or passing an appropriation ordinance * *
*.’ Subsequently the plaintiff in that action made a motion for
summary judgment on the first count alone, and defendants
moved for summary judgment on all counts. We have examined
the briefs and affidavits submitted to the trial court on those
motions, and it appears therefrom that the matter of the alleged
invalidity of the affiliation agreement for alleged noncompliance
with N.J.S.A. 40:2-29 and 40:50-6 was argued to the court. The
judgment of the court denied plaintiff’s motion and granted those
of defendants. No appeal therefrom was taken.
xxxx
Petitioner first seeks to avoid the effect of the prior judgment
on the ground that the subject matter of the two respective
proceedings differs. However, this is not, properly speaking, a case
of different subject matter, but of different causes of action. Such a
difference is immaterial if a postulate of law essential to the
success of the party in the later proceeding has been distinctly put
in issue and adjudicated Contra in the earlier, particularly where,
as here, the subject matter in both proceedings arises out of the
same transaction. See 30A Am. Jur., Judgments, s 360, p. 401;
Restatement, Judgments, ss 68, 70, comment pp. 319, 320; N.J.
Highway Authority v. Renner, 18 N.J. 485, 493, 494, 114 A.2d 555
(1955); Mazzilli v. Accident, etc., Casualty Ins. Co., etc., 26 N.J.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016915245694bce79600003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/22
2/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

307, 314, 139 A.2d 741 (1958) (quotation from City of Paterson v.
Baker, 51 N.J. Eq. 49, 26 A. 324 [Ch.1893]).
Nor will it avail petitioner that the taxpayer in the
earlier action was one other than herself. A taxpayer
attacking governmental action in which he has no peculiar
personal or special interest is taken to be suing as a
representative of all taxpayers as a class. The general rule
is that in the absence of fraud or collusion a judgment for
or against a governmental body in such an action is
binding and conclusive on all residents, citizens and
taxpayers with respect to matters adjudicated which are of
general and public interest. 50 C.J.S. Judgments s 796, p. 337;
cf. Edelstein v. Asbury Park, 51 N.J. Super. 368, 389, 143 A.2d 860
(App. Div. 1958); see also 18 McQuillin, Municipal

476

476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Public Interest Center, Inc. vs. Roxas

Corporations (3d ed. 1950), s 52.50,

38
pp. 124, 125; 52 Am. Jur.,
Taxpayers’ Actions, s 38, p. 26.” (Emphasis and italics supplied)

Hence, it is to no avail that petitioners invoke lack of

identity of parties. For petitioners in the first set of cases
and in the instant case are suing under a common or
general interest on a subject matter in a representative
capacity, for the benefit of all taxpayers as a class. As this
Court has repeatedly ruled, identity of parties needed to
satisfy the requirement in lis pendens or res judicata
requires39 only an identity of interest, not a literal identity of
parties.
As regards identity of causes of action, petitioners do not
deny that the first set of cases—the complaint filed in
Manila and the petition for mandamus filed before the
Court of Appeals—involves the same causes of action
grounded on the same set of facts as that of the Amended
Complaint filed by them. Indeed, the petition for
mandamus essentially sought to review the Manila RTC
order dismissing the first complaint. Petitioners’
incorporation of an additional cause of action in their
Amended Complaint filed before the Quezon City RTC,
occasioned merely by subsequent events, does not absolve
petitioners from forum shopping.
Additionally, petitioners violated the requirement to
report to the courts the fact that a similar action had been
filed or is already pending before the courts, regardless of

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016915245694bce79600003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/22
2/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

who initiated such similar action. For Section 5, Rule 7 of

the Rules of Court requires:

“SEC. 5. Certification against forum shopping.—The plaintiff or

principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other
initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn
certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith:
(a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any
claim

_______________

38 Petition of Gardiner, 67 N.J. Super 435, 170 A 2d 820 (1961).

39 Vide: First Philippine International Bank, et al. v. Court of Appeals, supra;
Luzon Development Bank v. Benedicto C. Conquilla, G.R. No. 163338, September
21, 2005, 470 SCRA 533.

477

VOL. 513, JANUARY 31, 2007 477

Public Interest Center, Inc. vs. Roxas

involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial

agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or
claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such pending action or
claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c)
if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar
action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report
that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court
wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has
been filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall
not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or
other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the
dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise
provided upon motion and after hearing. The submission of
a false certification or non-compliance with any of the
undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court,
without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and
criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly
constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall
be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall
constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative
sanctions.” (Emphasis and italics supplied)

Granted that petitioners were initially unaware of the

existence of the first set of cases, albeit their counsel was
one of the petitioners therein, such fact was already
brought to their attention during the hearing of their
40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016915245694bce79600003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/22
2/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513
40
application for a temporary restraining order conducted
after the filing of their Complaint. When petitioners
subsequently filed their Amended Complaint, however,
they failed to report the pendency of the petition for
mandamus before the appellate court bearing on the
dismissal by the Manila RTC of the complaint filed by the
Anti-Graft League of the Philippines, Inc. Public
respondent’s dismissal of the Amended Complaint on the
ground of forum shopping is thus in order.
This leaves it unnecessary to pass on the rest of the
issues.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
Costs against petitioners.

_______________

40 Rollo, p. 38.

478

478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Professional Services, Inc. vs. Agana

SO ORDERED.

     Quisumbing (Chairperson), Tinga and Velasco, Jr.,

JJ., concur.
          Carpio, J., No Part. Member of Gov’t. Panel
mentioned on pages 2 & 3.

Petition denied.

Note.—Forum shopping is the institution of two (2) or

more actions or proceedings on the same cause on the
supposition that either one or the other court would make a
favorable disposition. (Hanopol vs. Shoemart Incorporated,
390 SCRA 439 [2002])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016915245694bce79600003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/22
2/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016915245694bce79600003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/22