This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-10-05 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other.[27] In the present case, there was no final order yet and SPAC was still within its rights in availing itself of the proper remedy, i.e., to elevate the trial court's orders to the higher court, having been apprised of its erroneous resort to the wrong remedy of appeal. Furthermore, forum shopping presupposes the availment of two or more simultaneous remedies,[28] not to successive ones arising out of an error that may have been committed in good faith. Besides, the wrong remedy, as well as the correct one, was addressed to one and the same court, the CA, which was the correct forum to which the matter should be elevated. Raising a matter to the correct forum employing the wrong mode or remedy, and later resorting to the correct one, does not make an instance of forum shopping. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.[29] In a case, we held that the rule on forum shopping applies only where a party seeks a favorable opinion in another forum through means other than appeal or certiorari.[30] | |||||