This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-10-09 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable.[18] | |||||
|
2008-06-17 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Thus, respondent was not guilty of forum shopping when he filed the NCR case despite the pendency of the Davao case. 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.[26] There is forum shopping where the elements of litis pendentia are present, namely: (a) there is identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interest in both actions; (b) there is identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same set of facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful would amount to res judicata in the other.[27] While the first requisite concededly exists in the instant case, the second and third requisites do not. | |||||
|
2007-08-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Worthy of note, in a previous case, Asian Construction and Development Corporation v. Philippine Commercial International Bank,[14] the Court had said that the 1997 financial crisis that ensued in Asia did not constitute a valid justification to renege on obligations. We emphatically stressed the same view in Mondragon Leisure and Resorts Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[15] that the Asian financial crisis in 1997 is not among the fortuitous events contemplated under Article 1174 of the Civil Code. | |||||