This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-07-06 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| For forum shopping to exist, both actions must involve the same transaction, same essential facts and circumstances and must raise identical causes of action, subject matter and issues. Clearly, it does not exist where different orders were questioned, two distinct causes of action and issues were raised, and two objectives were sought.[10] | |||||
|
2005-04-15 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| As the Court held in Yulienco v. Court of Appeals:[37] | |||||
|
2004-08-31 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| It is significant to note that the action filed before the CSC-CAR is administrative in nature, dealing as it does with the proper administrative liability, if any, which may have been incurred by respondent for the commission of the acts complained of. In stark contrast, the case filed before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, which incidentally was not initiated by herein petitioners but by the complainant teachers, deals with the criminal accountability of the respondent for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Unmistakably, the rule on forum shopping would find no proper application since the two cases although based on the same essential facts and circumstances do not raise identical causes of action and issues.[10] It would, therefore, be absurd to require the certification of forum shopping to be attached to the formal charge filed before the CSC, for the evil sought to be curbed by the proscription against forum shopping is simply not extant in the instant case. | |||||