Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

AIR MATERIEL WING SAVINGS v. COL. LUVIN S. MANAY

This case has been cited 2 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. 183641 2015-04-22	BENJAMIN GUERRERO v. DIRECTOR PERALTA, J.
This move by private respondents is plain and simple forum shopping and deserves sanction from this Court.[38] Forum shopping is manifest whenever a party 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. Forum shopping is an act of malpractice as the litigants trifle with the courts and abuse their processes.[39] It degrades the administration of justice and adds to the already congested court dockets. An important factor in determining its existence is the vexation caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of similar cases to claim substantially the same reliefs.[40]