Lawyerly

GR No. 197530

2014-07-09

ABOITIZ EQUITY VENTURES v. VICTOR S. CHIONGBIAN

LEONEN, J.

While it is true that the parties to the first and second complaints are not absolutely identical, this court has clarified that, for purposes of forum shopping, "[a]bsolute identity of parties is not required [and that it] is enough that there is substantial identity of parties."[87]

GR No. 164985

2014-01-15

FIRST UNITED CONSTRUCTORS CORPORATION v. BAYANIHAN AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION

BERSAMIN, J.

the contract or transaction upon which the plaintiff's claim is founded.[9] To be entitled to recoupment, therefore, the claim must arise from the same transaction, i.e., the purchase of the prime mover and the transit mixer and not to a previous contract involving the purchase of the dump truck. That there was a series of purchases made by petitioners could not be considered as a single transaction, for the records show that the earlier purchase of the six dump trucks was a separate and distinct transaction from the subsequent purchase of the Hino Prime Mover and the Isuzu Transit Mixer. Consequently, the breakdown of one of the dump trucks did not grant to petitioners the right to stop and withhold payment of their remaining balance on the last two purchases. 2.

GR No. 179267

2013-06-25

JESUS C. GARCIA v. GARCIA

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

We cannot subscribe to the theory espoused by petitioner that, since a counterclaim, cross-claim and third-party complaint are to be excluded from the opposition, the issue of constitutionality cannot likewise be raised therein. A counterclaim is defined as any claim for money or other relief which a defending party may have against an opposing party.[50] A cross- claim, on the other hand, is any claim by one party against a co-party arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original action or of a counterclaim therein.[51] Finally, a third-party complaint is a claim that a defending party may, with leave of court, file against a person not a party to the action for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in respect of his opponent's claim.[52] As pointed out by Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, the unconstitutionality of a statute is not a cause of action that could be the subject of a counterclaim, cross-claim or a third-party complaint. Therefore, it is not prohibited from being raised in the opposition in view of the familiar maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

GR No. 187122

2012-02-22

NEGROS SLASHERS v. ALVIN L. TENG

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

For forum shopping to exist, it is necessary that (a) there be identity of parties or at least such parties that represent the same interests in both actions; (b) there be 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 one action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the other action.[25]

GR No. 164242

2008-11-28

DESTILERIA LIMTUACO v. ADVERTISING BOARD OF PHILIPPINES

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The test to determine whether the causes of action are identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence will sustain both actions, or whether there is an identity in the facts essential to the maintenance of the two actions. If the same facts or evidence would sustain both, the two actions are considered the same, and a judgment in the first case is a bar to the subsequent action.[14] The principle applies even if the reliefs sought in the two cases may be different.[15] Otherwise, a party could easily escape the operation of res judicata by changing the form of the action or the relief sought.[16]

GR No. 151016

2008-08-06

SPS. SOFRONIO SANTOS AND NATIVIDAD SANTOS v. HEIRS OF DOMINGA LUSTRE

NACHURA, J.

Concededly, the causes of action in Civil Case No. 1330 and Civil Case No. 2115 are identical. There is identity of causes of action if the same evidence needed in the first case will sustain the second action, and this principle applies even if the reliefs sought in the two cases are different.[24] Without a doubt, the same evidence will be necessary to sustain the causes of action in these two cases which are substantially based on the same series of transactions. In fact, similar reliefs are prayed for in the two cases. Both complaints ultimately seek the cancellation of the title of the alleged transferees and the recovery of the subject property.

GR NO. 128464

2006-06-20

REV. LUIS AO-AS v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Otherwise stated, there is forum shopping where a litigant sues the same party against whom another action or actions for the alleged violation of the same right and the enforcement of the same relief is/are still pending. The defense of litis pendentia in one case is a bar to the other/others; and, a final judgment is one that would constitute res judicata and thus would cause the dismissal of the rest. Absolute identity of the parties is not required. It is enough that there is substantial identity of the parties. It is enough that the party against whom the estoppel is set up is actually a party to the former case. There is identity of causes of action if the same evidence will sustain the second action. The principle applies even if the relief sought in the two cases may be different. 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.[10]

GR NO. 146717

2006-05-19

TRANSFIELD PHILIPPINES v. LUZON HYDRO CORPORATION

TINGA, J.

Thus, for forum-shopping to exist, there must be (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.[14]

GR NO. 145004

2006-05-03

CITY OF CALOOCAN v. CA

TINGA, J.

There is forum-shopping where a litigant sues the same party against whom another action or actions for the alleged violation of the same right and the enforcement of the same relief is/are still pending. The defense of litis pendentia in one case is a bar to the other/others; and, a final judgment is one that would constitute res judicata and thus would cause the dismissal of the rest.[26] For litis pendentia to be a ground for the dismissal of an action, the following requisites must concur: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties who 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 with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases is such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other case.[27]

GR NO. 145004

2006-05-03

CITY OF CALOOCAN v. CA

TINGA, J.

The Court finds that the cases involve the same principal parties, to wit: the City of Caloocan and Gotesco Investments, Inc., while the other parties were merely impleaded as nominal parties. As this Court has previously held, absolute identity of parties is not required. It is enough that there is substantial identity of parties.[32]

	GR No. 197530 2014-07-09	ABOITIZ EQUITY VENTURES v. VICTOR S. CHIONGBIAN LEONEN, J.
While it is true that the parties to the first and second complaints are not absolutely identical, this court has clarified that, for purposes of forum shopping, "[a]bsolute identity of parties is not required [and that it] is enough that there is substantial identity of parties."[87]
	GR No. 164985 2014-01-15	FIRST UNITED CONSTRUCTORS CORPORATION v. BAYANIHAN AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION BERSAMIN, J.
the contract or transaction upon which the plaintiff's claim is founded.[9] To be entitled to recoupment, therefore, the claim must arise from the same transaction, i.e., the purchase of the prime mover and the transit mixer and not to a previous contract involving the purchase of the dump truck. That there was a series of purchases made by petitioners could not be considered as a single transaction, for the records show that the earlier purchase of the six dump trucks was a separate and distinct transaction from the subsequent purchase of the Hino Prime Mover and the Isuzu Transit Mixer. Consequently, the breakdown of one of the dump trucks did not grant to petitioners the right to stop and withhold payment of their remaining balance on the last two purchases. 2.
	GR No. 179267 2013-06-25	JESUS C. GARCIA v. GARCIA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
We cannot subscribe to the theory espoused by petitioner that, since a counterclaim, cross-claim and third-party complaint are to be excluded from the opposition, the issue of constitutionality cannot likewise be raised therein. A counterclaim is defined as any claim for money or other relief which a defending party may have against an opposing party.[50] A cross- claim, on the other hand, is any claim by one party against a co-party arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original action or of a counterclaim therein.[51] Finally, a third-party complaint is a claim that a defending party may, with leave of court, file against a person not a party to the action for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in respect of his opponent's claim.[52] As pointed out by Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, the unconstitutionality of a statute is not a cause of action that could be the subject of a counterclaim, cross-claim or a third-party complaint. Therefore, it is not prohibited from being raised in the opposition in view of the familiar maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
	GR No. 187122 2012-02-22	NEGROS SLASHERS v. ALVIN L. TENG VILLARAMA, JR., J.
For forum shopping to exist, it is necessary that (a) there be identity of parties or at least such parties that represent the same interests in both actions; (b) there be 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 one action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the other action.[25]
	GR No. 164242 2008-11-28	DESTILERIA LIMTUACO v. ADVERTISING BOARD OF PHILIPPINES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The test to determine whether the causes of action are identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence will sustain both actions, or whether there is an identity in the facts essential to the maintenance of the two actions. If the same facts or evidence would sustain both, the two actions are considered the same, and a judgment in the first case is a bar to the subsequent action.[14] The principle applies even if the reliefs sought in the two cases may be different.[15] Otherwise, a party could easily escape the operation of res judicata by changing the form of the action or the relief sought.[16]
	GR No. 151016 2008-08-06	SPS. SOFRONIO SANTOS AND NATIVIDAD SANTOS v. HEIRS OF DOMINGA LUSTRE NACHURA, J.
Concededly, the causes of action in Civil Case No. 1330 and Civil Case No. 2115 are identical. There is identity of causes of action if the same evidence needed in the first case will sustain the second action, and this principle applies even if the reliefs sought in the two cases are different.[24] Without a doubt, the same evidence will be necessary to sustain the causes of action in these two cases which are substantially based on the same series of transactions. In fact, similar reliefs are prayed for in the two cases. Both complaints ultimately seek the cancellation of the title of the alleged transferees and the recovery of the subject property.
	GR NO. 128464 2006-06-20	REV. LUIS AO-AS v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Otherwise stated, there is forum shopping where a litigant sues the same party against whom another action or actions for the alleged violation of the same right and the enforcement of the same relief is/are still pending. The defense of litis pendentia in one case is a bar to the other/others; and, a final judgment is one that would constitute res judicata and thus would cause the dismissal of the rest. Absolute identity of the parties is not required. It is enough that there is substantial identity of the parties. It is enough that the party against whom the estoppel is set up is actually a party to the former case. There is identity of causes of action if the same evidence will sustain the second action. The principle applies even if the relief sought in the two cases may be different. 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.[10]
	GR NO. 146717 2006-05-19	TRANSFIELD PHILIPPINES v. LUZON HYDRO CORPORATION TINGA, J.
Thus, for forum-shopping to exist, there must be (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.[14]
	GR NO. 145004 2006-05-03	CITY OF CALOOCAN v. CA TINGA, J.
There is forum-shopping where a litigant sues the same party against whom another action or actions for the alleged violation of the same right and the enforcement of the same relief is/are still pending. The defense of litis pendentia in one case is a bar to the other/others; and, a final judgment is one that would constitute res judicata and thus would cause the dismissal of the rest.[26] For litis pendentia to be a ground for the dismissal of an action, the following requisites must concur: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties who 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 with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases is such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other case.[27]
	GR NO. 145004 2006-05-03	CITY OF CALOOCAN v. CA TINGA, J.
The Court finds that the cases involve the same principal parties, to wit: the City of Caloocan and Gotesco Investments, Inc., while the other parties were merely impleaded as nominal parties. As this Court has previously held, absolute identity of parties is not required. It is enough that there is substantial identity of parties.[32]

KOREA EXCHANGE BANK v. ROGELIO C. GONZALES