Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LAZARO MADARA v. NORMA C. PERELLO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 171247 2015-07-22	ALFREDO L. VILLAMOR v. AMELIA C. MANALASTAS BRION, J.
Otherwise stated, the test is whether the two (or more) pending cases have identity of parties, of rights or causes of action, and of the reliefs sought. Willful and deliberate violation of the rule against it is a ground for summary dismissal of the case; it may also constitute direct contempt.[32]
	GR No. 183641 2015-04-22	BENJAMIN GUERRERO v. DIRECTOR PERALTA, J.
Willful and deliberate violation of the rule against forum shopping is a ground for summary dismissal of the case and it may also constitute direct contempt of court.[63] Meanwhile, disobedience of or resistance to a lawful judgment of the Court is indirect contempt.[64] Direct contempt is punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand pesos (Php2,000.00) or imprisonment not exceeding ten (10) days, or both, if committed against a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank.[65] Indirect contempt, meanwhile, committed against a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank is punishable with a fine not exceeding thirty thousand pesos (Php30,000.00) or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or both.[66]
	GR Nos. 212140-41 2015-01-21	SENATOR JINGGOY EJERCITO ESTRADA v. BERSAMIN CARPIO, J.
The rule against forum shopping is not limited to the fulfillment of the requisites of litis pendentia.[52] To determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping, the most important factor to ask is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another.[53] Undergirding the 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. This theory is founded on the public policy that the same matter should not be the subject of controversy in court more than once in order that possible conflicting judgments may be avoided, for the sake of the stability in the rights and status of persons.[54]
	GR No. 186730 2012-06-13	JESSE YAP v. CA REYES, J.
As this Court held in Madara v. Perello:[19]
	GR No. 195546 2012-03-14	GOODLAND COMPANY v. ASIA UNITED BANK VILLARAMA, JR., J.
On the other hand, respondents maintain that the CA was correct in holding that petitioner is guilty of forum shopping as any ruling of either court on the identical issue of falsity of the REM would amount to res judicata in the other case. They also stress that forum shopping already exists when the cases involve the same or related causes and the same or substantially the same reliefs. Invoking stare decisis, respondents cite the final judgment rendered by this Court in G.R. No. 190231 involving the Laguna Properties which also involved the same parties and transactions as in the instant case. But even before the said ruling, respondents point out that it was already settled that there is forum shopping if two actions boil down to a single issue, although the issues and reliefs prayed for were stated differently, because the final disposition of one would constitute res judicata in the other, citing Prubankers Association v. Prudential Bank & Trust Company[20]. Another case[21] was cited by respondents holding that there is forum shopping when the remedies sought by the petitioner had the possibility of resulting in conflicting rulings, which supports the CA's observations.