Moreover, this Court has constantly held that the fact that
the positions of the parties are reversed, i.e., the plaintiffs in the first
case are the defendants in the second case or vice versa, does not negate the
identity of parties for purposes of determining whether the case is dismissible
on the ground of litis pendentia.
The grave mischief sought to be avoided by the rule
against forum shopping, i.e., the rendition by two competent tribunals of two
separate and contradictory decisions, is well-nigh palpable in this case. If
the Muntinlupa RTC were to rule that Michelle was entitled to a Protection
Order, this would necessarily conflict with any order or decision from the
Makati RTC granting Juan Ignacio visitation rights over Ava and Ara. As aptly
pointed out by Juan Ignacio in his Comment such a conflict had already
occurred, as the TPO issued by the Muntinlupa RTC actually conflicted with the
Orders issued by the Makati RTC granting Juan Ignacio temporary visitation
rights over his children. There now exists an Order from the Muntinlupa RTC which,
among others, directed Juan Ignacio to stay at least one (1) kilometer away
from Ava and Ara, even as the Makati RTC recognized, in two (2) separate
Orders, that he had the right, albeit temporarily to see his children (Michelle Lana
Brown-Araneta, et al. Vs. Juan Ignacio Araneta, G.R. No. 190814.
October 9, 2013).
