Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MARCOPPER MINING CORPORATION v. SOLIDBANK CORPORATION

This case has been cited 11 times or more.

	GR No. 141508 2010-05-05	ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO v. MANUEL LACSON
The essence of forum shopping is the filing by a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum, seeking another and possibly favorable opinion in another suit other than by appeal or special civil action for certiorari;[30] the act of filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment.[31] 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 action under consideration.[32]
	GR No. 180986 2008-12-10	NORBERTO ALTRES v. CAMILO G. EMPLEO CARPIO MORALES, J.
6) Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be executed by the party-pleader, not by his counsel.[33] If, however, for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a Special Power of Attorney[34] designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf.
	GR No. 171961 2008-11-28	FERDINAND A. DELA CRUZ v. AMELIA G. QUIAZON NACHURA, J.
At the outset, we sustain respondent's personality to file the petition for relief from judgment. A petition for relief from judgment is a remedy available to a party who, through fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence, was prevented from taking an appeal from a judgment or final order therein. The personality to file a petition for relief from judgment, therefore, resides in a person who is a party to the principal case. This legal standing is not lost by the mere transfer of the disputed property pendente lite. The original party does not lose his personality as a real party-in-interest merely because of the transfer of interest to another pendente lite.[25]
	GR NO. 154591 2007-03-05	MANILA HOTEL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The provisions of Supreme Court Circular Nos. 28-91 and 04-94 require a Certification of Non-Forum Shopping in any initiatory pleading filed before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. In the case of Teoville Homeowner's Association v. Ferreira,[36] the Court emphatically underscored the need to show to the satisfaction of the Court that the person signing the verification and certification against non-forum shopping had been specifically authorized to do so. In other similar cases,[37] it has been ruled that it is the party-pleader, and not the counsel, who must execute the certificate against forum shopping. The rationale for the rule is that the counsel may be unaware of any similar actions pending with other courts on the same matter. In this case, Ferdinand Barles was no longer an officer of the union at the time this petition was filed, and therefore was no longer privy to the cases that may have been filed by MHEA. Absent the specific authorization from the MHEA members that he sought to represent, any statement he may make cannot bind the MHEA herein named. For the foregoing reasons alone, this petition should be dismissed.
	GR NO. 153936 2007-03-02	ROSARIO M. REYES v. ALSONS DEVELOPMENT GARCIA, J.
The essence of forum shopping is the filing by a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum of another suit other than by appeal or special civil action for certiorari;[21] the act of filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment.[22] 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 action under consideration. [23]
	GR NO. 169341 2006-11-22	CITY OF CEBU v. VICENTE B. DEL ROSARIO CALLEJO, SR.,J.
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.[62] The test for determining whether a party violates the rule against forum shopping is where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the action under consideration or where the elements of litis pendentia are present.[63] What is truly important to consider in determining whether forum shopping exists or not is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related causes or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issues.[64]
	GR NO. 141447 2006-05-04	MACABANGKIT v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION CALLEJO, SR., J.
[35] Marcopper Mining Corporation v. Solidbank Corporation, G.R. No. 134049, June 17, 2004, 432 SCRA 360, 391.
	GR NO. 140086 2005-06-08	TEOVILLE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION v. EDWARD L. FERREIRA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
On the issue of forum shopping, in BA Savings Bank v. Sia[30] "the Court of Appeals denied due course to a petition for certiorari filed by BA Savings Bank on the ground that the Certification on anti-forum shopping incorporated in the petition was signed not by the duly authorized representative of the petitioner, as required under Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91, but by its counsel, in contravention of said circular." In a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by BA Savings Bank to assail the denial of the Court of Appeals, this Court allowed a relaxation of the rules and held that the certificate of non-forum shopping required by Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91 may be signed, for and on behalf of a corporation, by a specifically authorized lawyer who has personal knowledge of the facts required to be disclosed in such document. In this case, however, Teoville has not shown to the satisfaction of the Court that its counsel has been specifically authorized to sign the verification and certification against non-forum shopping in its petition. It follows, therefore, that a relaxation of the rule would not be justified. Thus, the prevailing jurisprudence enunciated in the case of Marcopper Mining Corporation v. Solidbank Corporation,[31] that the certification against forum shopping must be executed by the party-pleader and not by his counsel, applies.