This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2013-10-09 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| A circumstance of forum shopping occurs when, as a result or in anticipation of an adverse decision in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion in another forum through means other than appeal or certiorari by raising identical causes of action, subject matter and issues. Stated a bit differently, forum shopping is the institution of two or more actions involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, on the supposition that one or the other court would come out with a favorable disposition.[33] An indicium of the presence of, or the test for determining whether a litigant violated the rule against, forum shopping is where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other case.[34] | |||||
|
2008-02-14 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| There is forum-shopping when as a result of an adverse decision in one forum, or in anticipation thereof, a party seeks a favorable opinion in another forum through means other than appeal or certiorari.[46] Forum-shopping exists when two or more actions involve the same transactions, essential facts, and circumstances; and raise identical causes of action, subject matter, and issues.[47] Still another test of forum-shopping is when the elements of litis pendencia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another whether in the two or more pending cases, there is an identity of (a) parties (or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions),[48] (b) rights or causes of action, and (c) reliefs sought.[49] | |||||
|
2007-12-19 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Forum shopping exists when two or more actions involving the same transactions, essential facts and circumstances are filed and those actions raise identical issues, subject matter and causes of action.[45] The test is whether, in two or more pending cases, there is identity of parties, rights or causes of actions and reliefs.[46] | |||||
|
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] | |||||
|
2007-10-04 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| The essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment,[21] through means other than by appeal or certiorari.[22] The rule thus does not apply to cases that arise from an initiatory or original action which has been elevated by way of appeal or certiorari to higher or appellate courts or authorities. This is so not only because the issues in the appellate courts necessarily differ from those in the lower court, but also because the appealed cases are a continuation of the original case and treated as only one case. For, it would be absurd to require, say in this instant petition, to make mention in the certification against non-forum shopping the CA case that is being sought to be reviewed in the petition at bench. | |||||
|
2007-09-14 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In determining the nature of an action, it is not the caption but the averments of the petition and the character of the relief sought that are controlling.[12] Considering that petitioner charges the CA with acting in grave abuse of discretion, the petition should properly be treated as a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.[13] | |||||
|
2006-09-05 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| [14] Ligon v. CA, 355 Phil. 503 (1998). | |||||
|
2005-07-14 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, We are not remiss of the fact that this labor dispute has dragged on for more than seventeen (17) years and that this is the third occasion that the parties have come to this Court for redress of their grievances. Thus, with the aim of finally putting to rest this case and in the broader interest of justice, this Court shall treat this petition as a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65,[16] and shall now discuss the substantial issues put forth by the petitioners. | |||||
|
2005-06-08 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Even if we were to overlook this fact in the broader interests of justice and treat this as a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65,[40] the petition would nevertheless be dismissed for failure of the petitioner to show grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner's recurrent argument, tenuous at its very best, is premised on the fact that since respondent AIIBP failed to file its by-laws within the designated 60 days from the effectivity of Rep. Act No. 6848, all proceedings initiated by AIIBP and all actions resulting therefrom are a patent nullity. Or, in his words, the AIIBP and its officers and Board of Directors, | |||||