Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FORBES PARK ASSOCIATION v. PAGREL

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 202446 2015-09-16	EDUARDO BANDILLION v. LA FILIPINA UYGONGCO CORPORATION 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]
	GR No. 141508 2010-05-05	ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO v. MANUEL LACSON
The underlying principle of litis pendentia is the theory that a party is not allowed to vex another more than once regarding the same subject matter and for the same cause of action.[43] This theory is founded on the public policy that the same subject matter should not be the subject of controversy in courts more than once, in order that possible conflicting judgments may be avoided for the sake of the stability of the rights and status of persons.[44]
	GR No. 185159 2009-10-12	SUBIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY v. SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY VELASCO JR., J.
Litis pendentia is predicated on the principle that a party should not be allowed to vex another more than once regarding the same subject matter and for the same cause of action.[32] This principle in turn is founded on the public policy that the same subject matter should not be the subject of controversy in courts more than once, in order that possible conflicting judgments may be avoided for the sake of the stability of the rights and status of persons,[33] and also to avoid the costs and expenses incident to numerous suits.