Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR NO. 170916 2007-04-27	CGR CORPORATION HEREIN v. ERNESTO L. TREYES CARPIO MORALES, J.
In asserting the negative of the issue, respondent cites the 1999 case of Progressive Development Corporation, Inc. v. Court of Appeals.[17] In this case, Progressive Development Corporation, Inc. (Progressive), as lessor, repossessed the leased premises from the lessee allegedly pursuant to their contract of lease whereby it was authorized to do so if the lessee failed to pay monthly rentals. The lessee filed a case for forcible entry with damages against Progressive before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City. During the pendency of the case, the lessee filed an action for damages before the RTC, drawing Progressive to file a motion to dismiss based on litis pendentia. The RTC denied the motion.
	GR NO. 138208 2007-04-23	SPS. ISIDRO 'ABEL' CRUZ AND LEA CRUZ v. SPS. FLORENCIO AND AMPARO CARAOS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Forum shopping[17] is an act of a party, against whom an adverse judgment or order has been rendered in one forum, of seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion in another forum, other than by appeal or special civil action for certiorari.[18] It may also be the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.[19] The established rule is that for forum shopping to exist, both actions must involve the same transactions, same essential facts and circumstances and must raise identical causes of actions, subject matter, and issues.[20] Forum shopping unnecessarily burdens our courts with heavy caseloads, unduly taxes the manpower and financial resources of the judiciary and trifles with and mocks our judicial processes, thereby adversely affecting the efficient administration of justice.[21] Forum shopping is contumacious, as well as an act of malpractice that is proscribed and condemned as trifling with the courts and abusive of their processes.[22] A violation of the rule against forum shopping warrants prosecution for contempt of court and constitutes a ground for summary dismissal of the actions involved, without prejudice to appropriate administrative action against the counsel.[23]
	GR NO. 165835 2005-06-22	MAJOR GENERAL CARLOS F. GARCIA v. SANDIGANBAYAN TINGA, J.
Now to the charge that petitioner is guilty of forum-shopping. Forum-shopping is manifest whenever a party "repetitively avail[s] of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in, or already resolved adversely by, some other court."[83] It has also been defined as "an act of a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum of seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion in another forum, other than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari, or the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition."[84] Considered a pernicious evil, it adversely affects the efficient administration of justice since it clogs the court dockets, unduly burdens the financial and human resources of the judiciary, and trifles with and mocks judicial processes.[85] Willful and deliberate forum-shopping is a ground for summary dismissal of the complaint or initiatory pleading with prejudice and constitutes direct contempt of court, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions, which may both be resolved and imposed in the same case where the forum-shopping is found.[86]
	GR No. 144275 2001-07-05	NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v. CA BELLOSILLO, J.
However, in Progressive Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals[11] we held that while generally a motion for reconsideration must first be filed before resorting to certiorari in order to give the lower court an opportunity to rectify its errors, this rule admits of exceptions and is not intended to be applied without considering the circumstances of the case. The filing of a motion for reconsideration is not a condition sine qua non when the issue raised is purely one of law, or where the error is patent or the disputed order is void, or the questions raised on certiorari are the same as those already squarely presented to and passed upon by the lower court.
	GR No. 135101 2000-05-31	ALADIN CRUZ v. CA AND SPS. LAZARO AND ENRIQUETA VIDAL BELLOSILLO, J.
The antecedents clearly spell out a case for the proper application of res judicata. The following elements earlier enumerated are present in the instant case: (a) identity of parties or at least such as representing the same interest in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and, (c) the identity in the two (2) particulars is such that any judgment which may be rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.[15]