Lawyerly

GR No. 159691

2014-02-17

HEIRS OF MARCELO SOTTO v. MATILDE S. PALICTE

BERSAMIN, J.

same issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court."[1] Forum shopping is an act of malpractice that is prohibited and condemned because it trifles with the courts and abuses their processes. It degrades the administration of justice and adds to the already congested court dockets.[2] An important factor in determining its existence is the vexation caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of similar cases to claim substantially the same reliefs.[3] The test to determine the existence of forum shopping is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case amounts to res judicata in the other. Thus, there is forum shopping when the following elements are present,

GR No. 190814

2013-10-09

MICHELLE LANA BROWN-ARANETA v. JUAN IGNACIO ARANETA

VELASCO JR., J.

Thus, it has been held that there is forum shopping (1) whenever as a result of an adverse decision in one forum, a party seeks a favorable decision (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another; or (2) if, after he has filed a petition before the Supreme Court, a party files another before the CA since in such case said party deliberately splits appeals "in the hope that even as one case in which a particular remedy is sought is dismissed, another case (offering a similar remedy) would still be open"; or (3) where a party attempts to obtain a preliminary injunction in another court after failing to obtain it from the original court.[38]

GR Nos. 179431-32

2010-06-22

LUIS K. LOKIN v. COMELEC

BERSAMIN, J.

Forum shopping consists of 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. Thus, forum shopping may arise: (a) whenever as a result of an adverse decision in one forum, a party seeks a favorable decision (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another; or (b) if, after having filed a petition in the Supreme Court, a party files another petition in the Court of Appeals, because he thereby deliberately splits appeals "in the hope that even as one case in which a particular remedy is sought is dismissed, another case (offering a similar remedy) would still be open"; or (c) where a party attempts to obtain a writ of preliminary injunction from a court after failing to obtain the writ from another court.[19]

GR No. 141508

2010-05-05

ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO v. MANUEL LACSON

The essence of forum shopping is the filing by a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum, seeking another and possibly favorable opinion in another suit other than by appeal or special civil action for certiorari;[30] the act of 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.[31] 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 action under consideration.[32]

GR NO. 153936

2007-03-02

ROSARIO M. REYES v. ALSONS DEVELOPMENT

GARCIA, J.

The essence of forum shopping is the filing by a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum of another suit other than by appeal or special civil action for certiorari;[21] the act of 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.[22] 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 action under consideration. [23]

GR No. 156132

2006-10-16

CITIBANK v. MODESTA R. SABENIANO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Forum shopping has been defined as the filing of two or more suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment.[22] The test for determining forum shopping is whether in the two (or more) cases pending, there is an identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and relief sought.[23] To guard against this deplorable practice, Rule 7, Section 5 of the revised Rules of Court imposes the following requirement -

GR NO. 163569

2005-12-09

PHILIPPINE RADIANT PRODUCTS v. METROPOLITAN BANK

CALLEJO, SR., J.

SEC. 5. Certification against forum shopping. The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. It has been held that forum shopping is the act of a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum, of seeking another (and possibly favorable) opinion in another forum (other than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari), or the institution of two (2) or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.[52] Thus, it has been held that there is forum shopping (1) when, as a result of an adverse decision in one forum, a party seeks a favorable decision (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another; or (2) if, after he has filed a petition before the Supreme Court, a party files a motion before the Court of Appeals, since in such a case, he deliberately splits appeals "in the hope that even on one case in which a particular allowable remedy sought for is dismissed, another case (offering a similar remedy) would still be open;" or (3) where a party attempts to obtain a preliminary injunction in another court after finality to obtain the same from the original court.[53] 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 another.[54]

GR NO. 142619

2005-09-13

MUNICIPALITY OF TAGUIG v. CA

Petitioners allege that there is no forum shopping committed since the second petition for certiorari and prohibition was filed after they had filed a motion to withdraw their first petition citing Executive Secretary vs. Gordon;[10] that it was ruled in the Gordon case that there is no forum shopping when a party files a case in the lower court even after applying for a similar relief with the Supreme Court where such party had sought the withdrawal of his case in the SC in order to seek recourse in the lower court; that there could be no forum shopping before the same court or when both petitions are filed in the same court; that the two petitions assailed two different orders of the trial court: (1) the Order dated December 10, 1999 which extended the initial 72-hour TRO to 20 days; and (2) the Order dated December 17, 1999 granting the preliminary injunction against petitioners; that there is no forum shopping since no decision had been arrived at yet in the first petition nor did the filing of the second petition increase petitioners' chances of winning or securing a favorable action. Respondents filed their Comment thereto.

GR NO. 143312

2005-08-12

RICARDO S. SILVERIO v. FILIPINO BUSINESS CONSULTANTS

CARPIO, J.

Third, Silverio, Jr., Esses and Tri-Star are not guilty of forum shopping for filing another action against FBCI with the RTC Las Piñas during the pendency of this case with the RTC Balayan. Forum shopping consists of filing multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, to obtain a favorable judgment.[13]

GR No. 134990

2000-04-27

MANUEL M. LEYSON JR. v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

BELLOSILLO, J.

A brief note on private respondents' charge of forum shopping. Executive Secretary v. Gordon[16] is instructive that forum shopping consists of filing multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. It is readily apparent that the present charge will not prosper because the ca

	GR No. 159691 2014-02-17	HEIRS OF MARCELO SOTTO v. MATILDE S. PALICTE BERSAMIN, J.
same issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court."[1] Forum shopping is an act of malpractice that is prohibited and condemned because it trifles with the courts and abuses their processes. It degrades the administration of justice and adds to the already congested court dockets.[2] An important factor in determining its existence is the vexation caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of similar cases to claim substantially the same reliefs.[3] The test to determine the existence of forum shopping is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case amounts to res judicata in the other. Thus, there is forum shopping when the following elements are present,
	GR No. 190814 2013-10-09	MICHELLE LANA BROWN-ARANETA v. JUAN IGNACIO ARANETA VELASCO JR., J.
Thus, it has been held that there is forum shopping (1) whenever as a result of an adverse decision in one forum, a party seeks a favorable decision (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another; or (2) if, after he has filed a petition before the Supreme Court, a party files another before the CA since in such case said party deliberately splits appeals "in the hope that even as one case in which a particular remedy is sought is dismissed, another case (offering a similar remedy) would still be open"; or (3) where a party attempts to obtain a preliminary injunction in another court after failing to obtain it from the original court.[38]
	GR Nos. 179431-32 2010-06-22	LUIS K. LOKIN v. COMELEC BERSAMIN, J.
Forum shopping consists of 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. Thus, forum shopping may arise: (a) whenever as a result of an adverse decision in one forum, a party seeks a favorable decision (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another; or (b) if, after having filed a petition in the Supreme Court, a party files another petition in the Court of Appeals, because he thereby deliberately splits appeals "in the hope that even as one case in which a particular remedy is sought is dismissed, another case (offering a similar remedy) would still be open"; or (c) where a party attempts to obtain a writ of preliminary injunction from a court after failing to obtain the writ from another court.[19]
	GR No. 141508 2010-05-05	ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO v. MANUEL LACSON
The essence of forum shopping is the filing by a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum, seeking another and possibly favorable opinion in another suit other than by appeal or special civil action for certiorari;[30] the act of 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.[31] 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 action under consideration.[32]
	GR NO. 153936 2007-03-02	ROSARIO M. REYES v. ALSONS DEVELOPMENT GARCIA, J.
The essence of forum shopping is the filing by a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum of another suit other than by appeal or special civil action for certiorari;[21] the act of 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.[22] 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 action under consideration. [23]
	GR No. 156132 2006-10-16	CITIBANK v. MODESTA R. SABENIANO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Forum shopping has been defined as the filing of two or more suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment.[22] The test for determining forum shopping is whether in the two (or more) cases pending, there is an identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and relief sought.[23] To guard against this deplorable practice, Rule 7, Section 5 of the revised Rules of Court imposes the following requirement -
	GR NO. 163569 2005-12-09	PHILIPPINE RADIANT PRODUCTS v. METROPOLITAN BANK CALLEJO, SR., J.
SEC. 5. Certification against forum shopping. The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. It has been held that forum shopping is the act of a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum, of seeking another (and possibly favorable) opinion in another forum (other than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari), or the institution of two (2) or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.[52] Thus, it has been held that there is forum shopping (1) when, as a result of an adverse decision in one forum, a party seeks a favorable decision (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another; or (2) if, after he has filed a petition before the Supreme Court, a party files a motion before the Court of Appeals, since in such a case, he deliberately splits appeals "in the hope that even on one case in which a particular allowable remedy sought for is dismissed, another case (offering a similar remedy) would still be open;" or (3) where a party attempts to obtain a preliminary injunction in another court after finality to obtain the same from the original court.[53] 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 another.[54]
	GR NO. 142619 2005-09-13	MUNICIPALITY OF TAGUIG v. CA
Petitioners allege that there is no forum shopping committed since the second petition for certiorari and prohibition was filed after they had filed a motion to withdraw their first petition citing Executive Secretary vs. Gordon;[10] that it was ruled in the Gordon case that there is no forum shopping when a party files a case in the lower court even after applying for a similar relief with the Supreme Court where such party had sought the withdrawal of his case in the SC in order to seek recourse in the lower court; that there could be no forum shopping before the same court or when both petitions are filed in the same court; that the two petitions assailed two different orders of the trial court: (1) the Order dated December 10, 1999 which extended the initial 72-hour TRO to 20 days; and (2) the Order dated December 17, 1999 granting the preliminary injunction against petitioners; that there is no forum shopping since no decision had been arrived at yet in the first petition nor did the filing of the second petition increase petitioners' chances of winning or securing a favorable action. Respondents filed their Comment thereto.
	GR NO. 143312 2005-08-12	RICARDO S. SILVERIO v. FILIPINO BUSINESS CONSULTANTS CARPIO, J.
Third, Silverio, Jr., Esses and Tri-Star are not guilty of forum shopping for filing another action against FBCI with the RTC Las Piñas during the pendency of this case with the RTC Balayan. Forum shopping consists of filing multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, to obtain a favorable judgment.[13]
	GR No. 134990 2000-04-27	MANUEL M. LEYSON JR. v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN BELLOSILLO, J.
A brief note on private respondents' charge of forum shopping. Executive Secretary v. Gordon[16] is instructive that forum shopping consists of filing multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. It is readily apparent that the present charge will not prosper because the ca

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY v. RICHARD J. GORDON