This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-11-17 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Under the "interest of justice rule", moreover, the determination of which court would be "in a better position to serve the interests of justice" also entails the consideration of the following factors: (a) the nature of the controversy; (b) the comparative accessibility of the court to the parties; and, (c) other similar factors.[58] Considering that majority of the parties live closer to the Parañaque RTC,[59] we cannot hospitably entertain petitioners' insistence that the abatement of the case before said court in favor of the one they filed before the Naga RTC would promote the expeditious and inexpensive disposition of the parties' complaints for damages against each other which are indisputably personal in nature. Even assuming that they would all be called to testify regarding the circumstances surrounding the subject vehicular accident, it also appears that, as residents of Brgy. Inocencio Salud, General Emilio Aguinaldo (GMA), Cavite City, the witnesses Martin, Marvin and Jan-Jon Sadiwa[60] live closer to the Parañaque RTC rather than the Naga RTC. | |||||
|
2006-02-13 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Similarly, in Victronics Computers, Inc. v. Regional Trial Court, Branch 63, Makati,[17] we held:x x x [A] careful reading of the allegations in the parties' respective complaints and motions to dismiss in the two (2) civil actions below reveals that both assert rights founded on an identical set of facts which give rise to one basic issue the validity of the contract in question, x x x. Civil Case No. 91-2069 actually involves an action for specific performance; it thus upholds the contract and assumes its validity. Civil Case No. 91-2192, on the other hand, is for the nullification of the contract on the grounds of fraud and vitiated consent. While ostensibly the cause of action in one is opposite to that in the other, in the final analysis, what is being determined is the validity of the contract. It would not have been unlikely that in its answer filed in Civil Case No. 91-2192, the petitioner would merely reiterate its allegations in the complaint in Civil Case No. 91-2069 sustaining and invoking the validity of the purchase order and setting up lis pendens as a defense. This is what it exactly did. It would not have been likewise unlikely that the defense of the private respondents in Civil Case No. 91-2069 would be one in pursuit of their theory, as plaintiffs, in Civil Case No. 91-2192. Thus, the identity of rights asserted cannot be disputed. Howsoever viewed, it is beyond cavil that regardless of the decision that would be promulgated in Civil Case No. 91-2069, the same would constitute res judicata on Civil Case No. 91-2192 and vice-versa. (Emphasis supplied) | |||||