Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EDGARDO V. GUEVARA v. BPI SECURITIES CORPORATION

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 194751 2014-11-26	AURORA N. DE PEDRO v. ROMASAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LEONEN, J.
The requisites of litis pendentia are: "(a) identity of parties, or 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 is 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.[128]
	GR No. 193415 2012-04-18	SPS. DAISY AND SOCRATES M. AREVALO v. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK SERENO, J.
We emphasize that the grave evil sought to be avoided by the rule against forum-shopping is the rendition by two competent tribunals of two separate and contradictory decisions.[59] To avoid any confusion, this Court adheres strictly to the rules against forum shopping, and any violation of these rules results in the dismissal of a case.[60] The acts committed and described herein can possibly constitute direct contempt.[61]
	GR No. 181485 2012-02-15	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. GATEWAY PROPERTY HOLDINGS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We further emphasized in Guevara v. BPI Securities Corporation[33] that "[t]here is litis pendentia or another action pendente lite if the following requisites 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 is 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."[34]
	GR No. 174109 2008-12-24	RURAL BANK OF SEVEN LAKES v. BELEN A. DAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Forum shopping is a deplorable practice of litigants of resorting to two different fora for the purpose of obtaining the same relief, to increase his or her chances of obtaining a favorable judgment. What is pivotal to consider in determining whether forum shopping exists or not is the vexation caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by a person who asks appellate courts and/or administrative entities to rule on the same related causes and/or to grant the same or substantially the same relief, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions by the different courts or fora upon the same issues.[20]
	GR No. 174929 2008-06-27	ENGR. RANULFO C. FELICIANO v. NESTOR P. VILLASIN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court reiterates the raison d'etre for the proscription against forum shopping. The grave evil sought to be avoided by the rule against forum shopping is the rendition by two competent tribunals of two separate and contradictory decisions unscrupulous party litigants, taking advantage of a variety of competent tribunals, may repeatedly try their luck in several fora until a favorable result is reached.[49]