Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LA CAMPANA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. LALAINE SEE

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 202446 2015-09-16	EDUARDO BANDILLION v. LA FILIPINA UYGONGCO CORPORATION PERALTA, J.
In numerous cases, this Court has defined what constitutes litis pendentia. The essential elements of litis pendentia are as follows: (1) identity of parties or representation in both cases; (2) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for; (3) reliefs founded on the same facts and the same basis; and (4) identity of the two preceding particulars should be such that any judgment, which may be rendered in the other action, will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.[76]
	GR No. 181201 2011-02-21	UNIVERSITY OF MINDANAO v. PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION PERALTA, J.
Moroever, this Court observes that the PDIC filed on July 15, 2005 its record on appeal and that the same was approved by the RTC in an Order dated May 25, 2006. The CA did not find the non-submission of the copies fatal to PDIC's appeal. In the same vein, this Court finds no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA for choosing not to dismiss the appeal as it could just simply ask the PDIC to submit the required copies of the approved record on appeal. In any case, it bears to stress that certiorari will not issue to correct errors of procedure.[50]
	GR No. 178899 2010-11-15	PHILIPPINE BUSINESS BANK v. FELIPE CHUA BRION, J.
Contrary to PBB's contention, however, certiorari was not the proper recourse for respondent Chua. The propriety of the summary judgment may be corrected only on appeal or other direct review, not a petition for certiorari,[35] since it imputes error on the lower court's judgment. It is well-settled that certiorari is not available to correct errors of procedure or mistakes in the judge's findings and conclusions of law and fact.[36] As we explained in Apostol v. Court of Appeals:[37]
	GR No. 181455-56 2009-12-04	SANTIAGO CUA v. MIGUEL OCAMPO TAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Forum shopping is present when, in two or more cases pending, there is identity of (1) parties (2) rights or causes of action and reliefs prayed for, and (3) the two preceding particulars, 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.[55]
	GR No. 179127 2008-12-24	IN-N-OUT BURGER v. SEHWANI CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Forum shopping is present when, in two or more cases pending, there is identity of (1) parties (2) rights or causes of action and reliefs prayed for, and (3) 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.[39]
	GR No. 164632 2008-10-29	URETHANE TRADING SPECIALIST v. EDWIN ONG NACHURA, J.
Well-entrenched in our jurisdiction is the rule that the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss cannot be questioned in a certiorari proceeding under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. This is because a certiorari writ is a remedy designed to correct errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment.[18] The appropriate course of action of the movant in such event is to file an answer[19] and interpose as affirmative defenses the objections raised in the motion to dismiss.[20] If, later, the decision of the trial judge is adverse, the movant may then elevate on appeal the same issues raised in the motion.[21]
	GR NO. 169008 2007-08-14	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. RAYMUNDA MARTINEZ NACHURA, J.
Even if we allow the LBP's filing of the instant petition without any authority from the OGCC, we must still deny the same for we find no reversible error in the CA's ruling that LBP forum shopped. In Repol v. Commission on Elections,[22] we found forum shopping in the filing of a petition for certiorari during the pendency of an omnibus motion to reconsider, set aside and quash a writ of execution with the trial court. Likewise, in Go v. Judge Abrogar,[23] we deemed as a violation of the rules against forum shopping the institution of a separate action for annulment of auction sale with injunction, simultaneous with a third-party adverse claim and motion to quash writ of execution, and a petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition. Further, in La Campana Development Corporation v. See,[24] we explained that the simultaneous filing of a motion to quash writ of execution and an action for the annulment of a judgment run afoul of the prohibition on forum shopping, thus:In essence, forum shopping is the practice of litigants resorting to two different fora for the purpose of obtaining the same relief, to increase their chances of obtaining a favorable judgment. In determining whether forum shopping exists, it is important to consider 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 on the same issues. We have ruled that forum shopping is present when, in two or more cases pending, there is identity of (1) parties (2) rights or causes of action and reliefs prayed for and (3) 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.