This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2009-10-02 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Saura v. Saura, Jr.,[21] this Court emphasized the primacy of the regular court's judicial power enshrined in the Constitution that is true that the trend is towards vesting administrative bodies like the SEC with the power to adjudicate matters coming under their particular specialization, to insure a more knowledgeable solution of the problems submitted to them. This would also relieve the regular courts of a substantial number of cases that would otherwise swell their already clogged dockets. But as expedient as this policy may be, it should not deprive the courts of justice of their power to decide ordinary cases in accordance with the general laws that do not require any particular expertise or training to interpret and apply. Otherwise, the creeping take-over by the administrative agencies of the judicial power vested in the courts would render the judiciary virtually impotent in the discharge of the duties assigned to it by the Constitution. | |||||
|
2008-12-24 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The test for determining 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 another. Thus, there is forum shopping when the following elements are present: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration; said requisites are also constitutive of the requisites for auter action pendant or lis pendens.[22] | |||||
|
2008-08-26 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| The trend is towards vesting administrative bodies like the SEC with the power to adjudicate matters coming under their particular specialization, to ensure a more knowledgeable solution of the problems submitted to them. This would also relieve the regular courts of a substantial number of cases that would otherwise swell their already clogged dockets. But as expedient as this policy may be, it should not deprive the courts of justice of their power to decide criminal cases. Otherwise, the creeping take-over by the administrative agencies of the judicial power vested in the courts would render the judiciary virtually impotent in the discharge of the duties assigned to it by the Constitution.[48] | |||||
|
2007-04-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present, and where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other.[24] The elements of forum shopping are: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as would represent the same interest in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) identity of the two preceding particulars such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.[25] | |||||
|
2005-01-31 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Administrative agencies are tribunals of limited jurisdiction and as such, can exercise only those powers which are specifically granted to them by their enabling statutes. Consequently, matters over which they are not granted authority are beyond their competence.[56] While the trend is towards vesting administrative bodies with the power to adjudicate matters coming under their particular specialization, to ensure a more knowledgeable solution of the problems submitted to them, this should not deprive the courts of justice their power to decide ordinary cases in accordance with the general laws that do not require any particular expertise or training to interpret and apply.[57] In their complaint in the civil case, petitioners do not seek any relief under the Labor Code but the payment of a sum of money as damages on account of respondents' alleged tortuous conduct. The action is within the realm of civil law and, hence, jurisdiction over the case belongs to the regular courts.[58] | |||||
|
2004-06-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| (a) The former judgment must be final; (b) The court which rendered judgment must have jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter; (c) It must be a judgment on the merits; and (d) There must be between the first and second actions identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action.[20] Well-settled is the rule that lis pendens requires only substantial, and not absolute, identity of parties.[21] There is substantial identity of parties when there is a community of interest between a party in the first case and a party in the second case, even if the latter was not impleaded in the first case. We have also held that the fact that the position of the parties was reversed, the plaintiffs in the first case being the defendants in the second case or vice versa, does not negate the identity of parties for the purpose of litis pendentia.[22] | |||||
|
2004-04-14 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| (d) There must be between the first and second actions identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action.[32] In this case, any judgment rendered in one of the actions will not amount to res judicata in the other action. There being different causes of action, the decision in one case will not constitute res judicata as to the other. | |||||
|
2000-08-25 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The second test, on the other hand, focuses on the nature of the controversy itself.[3] Recent decisions of this Court consider not only the subject of their controversy but also the status of the parties.[4] | |||||