This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-07-05 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| There is forum shopping when one party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in, or already resolved adversely, by some other court.[90] Forum shopping is a prohibited malpractice and condemned as trifling with the courts and their processes.[91] It is proscribed because it unnecessarily burdens the courts with heavy caseloads, and unduly taxes the manpower and financial resources of the judiciary.[92] It is inimical to the orderly administration of justice as it creates the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by two courts,[93] and opens the system to the possibility of manipulation.[94] | |||||
|
2009-10-26 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| A more recent case - Abines v. Bank of the Philippine Islands[22] in 2006 - saw the application of both the "priority-in-time rule" and the "more appropriate action test." In this case, the respondent filed a complaint for collection of sum of money against the petitioners to enforce its rights under the promissory notes and real estate mortgages, while the petitioners subsequently filed a complaint for reformation of the promissory notes and real estate mortgages. We held that the first case, the collection case, should subsist because it is the first action filed and the more appropriate vehicle for litigating all the issues in the controversy. We noted that in the second case, the reformation case, the petitioners acknowledged their indebtedness to the respondent; they merely contested the amounts of the principal, interest and the remaining balance. We observed, too, that the petitioners' claims in the reformation case were in the nature of defenses to the collection case and should be asserted in this latter case. | |||||
|
2009-05-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| While it is true that both parties raised the issue of ownership over the subject property, yet it is emphasized that in ejectment cases, even if the question of ownership is raised in the pleadings, the court may pass upon such issue but only to determine the question of possession especially if the former is inseparably linked with the latter, but such determination of ownership is not clothed with finality and neither will it affect ownership of the property nor constitute a binding and conclusive adjudication on the merits with respect to the issue of ownership. Therefore, the judgment in the present case would not amount to res judicata in the other case which is the pending Annulment of Dacion En Pago.[22] Forum-shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present, namely: (a) identity of parties or at least such as representing the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity in the two cases should be such that the judgment that may be rendered in one would, regardless of which party is successful, amounts to res judicata in the other.[23] | |||||
|
2008-07-31 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Forum shopping is a prohibited malpractice and condemned as trifling with the courts and their processes.[47] It is proscribed because it unnecessarily burdens the courts with heavy caseloads. It also unduly taxes the manpower and financial resources of the judiciary. It mocks the judicial processes, thus, affecting the efficient administration of justice.[48] | |||||