This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2015-09-16 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Forum shopping is the act of a litigant who "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 to increase his chances of obtaining a favorable decision if not in one court, then in another.[70] It is a practice currently prohibited by Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court.[71] Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other.[72] We have repeatedly maintained that forum shopping is an act of malpractice, as the litigants who commit such trifle with the courts and abuse their processes.[73] It degrades the administration of justice and adds to the already congested court dockets.[74] Acts of willful and deliberate forum shopping shall be a ground for summary dismissal of the case with prejudice.[75] | |||||
|
2015-02-23 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Forum shopping refers to the act of availing of several remedies in different courts and/or administrative agencies, either simultaneously or successively, when these remedies are substantially founded on the same material facts and circumstances and raise basically the same issues either pending in or already resolved by some other court or administrative agency.[93] What is pivotal in determining whether forum shopping exists is the vexation caused to the courts and litigants and the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by different courts and/or administrative agencies upon the same issues.[94] | |||||
|
2009-02-13 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| An interlocutory order is one that does not finally dispose of the case and does not end the Court's task of adjudicating the parties' contentions and determining their rights and liabilities as regards each other, but obviously indicates that other things remain to be done by the Court.[19] The word "interlocutory" refers to something intervening between the commencement and the end of a suit which decides some point or matter but is not a final decision of the whole controversy.[20] Interlocutory orders merely rule on an incidental issue and do not terminate or finally dispose of the case as they leave something to be done before it is finally decided on the merits.[21] | |||||
|
2007-12-10 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and hearing. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions. Forum shopping is condemned because it unnecessarily burdens our courts with heavy caseloads, unduly taxes the manpower and financial resources of the judiciary and trifles with and mocks judicial processes, thereby affecting the efficient administration of justice.[7] The primary evil sought to be proscribed by the prohibition against forum shopping is, however, the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different courts and/or administrative agencies upon the same issues.[8] | |||||
|
2006-08-03 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| [39] Rudecon Management Corporation v. Singson, G.R. No. 150798, 31 March 2005, 454 SCRA 612, 632-633. | |||||
|
2006-04-19 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| The remedy taken by petitioner, that is, an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45, brings up for review errors committed by the court in the exercise of its jurisdiction amounting to nothing more than errors of judgment.[11] Specifically, this mode of appeal involves the review of judgments, awards or final orders on the merits where only questions of law are raised.[12] It must be stressed, however, that only judgments or final orders that completely dispose of the case or a particular matter can be the subject of such review.[13] Hence, appeal is not allowed against interlocutory orders which are merely provisional and decide some point or matter but are not a final decision of the whole controversy.[14] The rationale for this rule was stated in Rudecon Management Corporation v. Singson,[15] which quoted Sitchon v. Sheriff of Occidental Negros,[16] to wit:The reason of the law in permitting appeal only from a final order or judgment, and not from interlocutory or incidental one, is to avoid multiplicity of appeals in a single action, which must necessarily suspend the hearing and decision on the merits of the case during the pendency of the appeal. If such appeal were allowed, the trial on the merits of the case should necessarily be delayed for a considerable length of time, and compel the adverse party to incur unnecessary expenses; for one of the parties may interpose as many appeals as incidental questions may be raised by him and interlocutory orders rendered or issued by the lower court. | |||||
|
2005-09-13 |
|||||
| Forum shopping exists when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another, or when he institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the gamble that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.[11] | |||||