This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2016-01-13 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| To determine whether a counterclaim is compulsory or permissive, we have devised the following tests: (a) Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim and by the counterclaim largely the same? (b) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendants' claims, absent the compulsory counterclaim rule? (c) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiffs' claim as well as the defendants' counterclaim? and (d) Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim?[17] A positive answer to all four questions would indicate that the counterclaim is compulsory.[18] | |||||
|
2007-04-24 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Unless exempted by the court, the applicant files with the court where the action or proceeding is pending, a bond executed to the party or person enjoined, in an amount to be fixed by the court, to the effect that the applicant will pay to such party or person all damages which he may sustain by reason of the injunction or temporary restraining order if the court should finally decide that the applicant was not entitled thereto. Upon approval of the requisite bond, a writ of preliminary injunction shall be issued. The aforesaid provision of law clearly provides that the injunction bond is answerable for all damages. The bond insures with all practicable certainty that the defendant may sustain no ultimate loss in the event that the injunction could finally be dissolved.[32] Consequently, the bond may obligate the bondsmen to account to the defendant in the injunction suit for all damages, or costs and reasonable counsel's fees, incurred or sustained by the latter in case it is determined that the injunction was wrongfully issued.[33] Likewise, the posting of a bond in connection with a preliminary injunction does not operate to relieve the party obtaining an injunction from any and all responsibility for damages that the writ may thereby cause. It merely gives additional protection to the party against whom the injunction is directed. It gives the latter a right of recourse against either the applicant or his surety or against both.[34] | |||||
|
2007-04-23 |
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] | |||||
|
2000-11-23 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| The following are the tests by which the compulsory nature of a counterclaim can be determined: (1) Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim and counterclaim largely the same? (2) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant's claim absent the compulsory counterclaim rule? (3) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiff's claim as well as defendant's counterclaim? (4) Is there any logical relation between the claim and counterclaim?[28] | |||||
|
2000-06-08 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| We thus do not see any need to discuss further the allegations and contentions on procedural matters of the petitioners in G.R. No. 112876. Suffice it to state that private respondents were not guilty of forum-shopping, which is prohibited by Circular No. 28-91, when they filed the petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals. 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 action, subject matter and issues.[65] In filing the special civil action of certiorari and prohibition, private respondents simply raised the issue of jurisdiction of the lower courts in the actions they took cognizance of. | |||||