Lawyerly

GR No. 171897

2015-10-14

JARDELEZA, J.

Finally, we observe that PTC appears to have willfully engaged in forum shopping. PTC, in its own words, opposed the execution of the Bataan RTC decision because '"the Decision promulgated on September 4, 1990 by the RTC of Manila, Branch 40 [in Civil Case No. 130783] denied Petitioner's counterclaims."[39] Forum shopping is committed by a party who, having received an adverse judgment in one forum, seeks another opinion in another court, other than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari. More accurately, forum shopping is the institution of two or more suits in different courts, either simultaneously or successively, in order to ask the courts to rule on the same or related causes and/or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs.[40]

GR No. 175278

2015-09-23

GSIS FAMILY BANK - THRIFT BANK v. BPI FAMILY BANK

JARDELEZA, J.

In this case, the fact that respondent filed a case before the DTI was made known to petitioner[71] long before the SEC rendered its decision. Yet, despite its knowledge, petitioner failed to question the alleged forum shopping before the SEC. The exceptions to the general rule that forum shopping should be raised in the earliest opportunity, as explained in the cited case of Young v. Keng Seng,[72] do not obtain in this case.

GR No. 171247

2015-07-22

ALFREDO L. VILLAMOR v. AMELIA C. MANALASTAS

BRION, J.

As a rule, forum shopping is committed by a party who, having received an adverse judgment in one forum, seeks another opinion in another court other than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari. Conceptually, forum shopping is the institution of two or more suits in different courts, either simultaneously or successively, in order to ask the courts to rule on the same or related causes and/or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs.[27]

GR No. 195594

2014-09-29

REPUBLIC v. SPS. ROGELIO LAZO AND DOLORES LAZO

PERALTA, J.

Forum shopping is committed by a party who, having received an adverse judgment in one forum, seeks another opinion in another court, other than by appeal or special civil action of certiorari.[39] It is the institution of two or more suits in different courts, either simultaneously or successively, in order to ask the courts to rule on the same or related causes and/or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs.[40] In a fairly recent case,[41] the Court reiterated: There is forum shopping "when 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 that is prohibited and condemned because it trifles with the courts and abuses their processes. 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.

GR No. 179691

2013-12-04

PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS v. MARY ANN O. YEUNG

BRION, J.

The petitioner's argument that the respondent is guilty of forum shopping by not disclosing the pendency of the case for nullity of foreclosure sale deserves scant consideration. Forum shopping is committed by a party who, having received an adverse judgment in one forum, seeks another opinion in another court, other than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari. It is the institution of two or more suits in different courts, either simultaneously or successively, in order to ask the courts to rule on the same or related causes and/or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs.[30]

GR No. 186730

2012-06-13

JESSE YAP v. CA

REYES, J.

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; otherwise stated, the test for determining forum shopping is whether in the two (or more) cases pending, there is identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought.[15]

GR No. 171525

2010-07-23

ST. CATHERINE REALTY CORPORATION v. FERDINAND Y. PINEDA

CARPIO, J.

Forum shopping is the institution of two or more suits in different courts, either simultaneously or successively, in order to ask the courts to rule on the same or related causes or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs.[17] It is an act of malpractice that is prohibited and condemned because it trifles with the courts and abuses their processes.[18] It degrades the administration of justice and adds to the already congested court dockets.[19] Its requisites are: (1) identity of parties, or at least such parties who represent the same interests in both actions; (2) identity of the rights asserted and the relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (3) identity of the two preceding particulars such that any judgment rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other.[20]

GR No. 156797

2010-07-06

IN RE: RECONSTITUTION OF TRANSFER CERTIFICATES OF TITLE NOS. 303168

BERSAMIN, J.

In Young v Keng Seng,[20] which involved a false certification of non-forum shopping, the Court cogently held that: The foregoing certification is obviously inaccurate, if not downright false, because it does not disclose the filing of the First Case. Had this violation been appropriately brought up in the Motion to Dismiss, it could have resulted in the abatement of the Second case.

GR Nos. 189431 & 191120

2010-04-07

MAYOR QUINTIN B. SALUDAGA v. COMELEC

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Forum shopping is the institution of two (2) or more suits in different courts, either simultaneously or successively, in order to ask the courts to rule on the same or related causes and/or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs.[23] There is forum shopping when as a result of an adverse decision in one (1) forum, or in anticipation thereof, a party seeks favorable opinion in another forum through means other than appeal or certiorari.[24]

GR No. 173931

2009-04-02

ALICIA D. TAGARO v. ESTER A. GARCIA

TINGA, J.

Ordinarily, a dismissal on the ground of forum shopping dispenses with the need to address the other issues raised in the case. But this rule is not hard-and-fast, more so since the dismissal occasioned by breach of the anti-forum shopping rule does not permeate the merits of the case. Where such technical dismissal would otherwise lead to an inequitable result, the appropriate recourse is to resolve the issue concerned on its merit or resort to the principles of equity. After all, rules of procedure should not operate at all times in such a rigid way that would override the ends of substantial justice. Specifically, the rule on forum shopping was cobbled to foster and accelerate the orderly administration of justice and, therefore, should not be interpreted literally in every instance.[44]

GR No. 174290

2009-01-20

ST. MARY OF WOODS SCHOOL v. OFFICE OF REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF MAKATI CITY

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Forum shopping is committed by a party who, having received an adverse judgment in one forum, seeks another opinion in another court, other than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari. More accurately, however, forum shopping is the institution of two or more suits in different courts, either simultaneously or successively, in order to ask the courts to rule on the same or related causes and/or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs.[53] The essence of forum-shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, to secure a favorable judgment. Forum-shopping is present when in the two or more cases pending, there is identity of parties, rights of action and reliefs sought.[54]

GR No. 172449

2008-08-20

LAZARO MADARA v. NORMA C. PERELLO

BRION, J.

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. 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.[34] Willful and deliberate violation of the rule against it is a ground for summary dismissal of the case; it may also constitute direct contempt."[35]

GR No. 163208

2008-08-13

HEIRS OF JUAN VALDEZ v. CA

BRION, J.

That the CA could also require the respondents to comment, with the obligation on the part of the petitioner to undertake rectification, is not without support from established jurisprudence. In several cases,[16] we allowed initiatory pleadings or petitions with initially defective verifications and certifications of non-forum shopping on the ground of substantial compliance.[17] We reasoned that strict compliance with the requirement merely underscores its mandatory nature, in that, it cannot be dispensed with or its requirements altogether disregarded.[18] Thus, we have held that the subsequent submission of the required documents (such as the secretary's certificate) constituted substantial compliance with the procedural rules that justified relaxation of the requirements in the interest of justice.[19]

GR NO. 157629

2007-03-22

J & N SHIPPING LINES v. TECHNOMARINE CO.

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

In filing the second complaint, respondents did not certify under oath therein that they have not filed any complaint involving the same issues with any court. Pursuant to the above provision, the second complaint was dismissible on the ground of forum shopping. Engaging in forum shopping cannot be countenanced as it degrades the administration of justice and adds to the already congested court dockets.[6] In SK Realty, Inc., et al. v. Uy,[7] we held:A party is guilty of forum shopping where he repetitively availed 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. (Emphasis supplied)

GR No. 156132

2006-10-16

CITIBANK v. MODESTA R. SABENIANO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Forum shopping has been defined as the filing of two or more suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment.[22] The test for determining forum shopping is whether in the two (or more) cases pending, there is an identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and relief sought.[23] To guard against this deplorable practice, Rule 7, Section 5 of the revised Rules of Court imposes the following requirement -

GR NO. 143217

2005-12-14

AMANDO S. SAN JUAN v. MIGUEL L. ARAMBULO

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

SO ORDERED." Moreover, in Young vs. Keng Seng,[7] we held that forum shopping is committed by a party who, having received an adverse judgment in one forum, seeks another opinion in another court, other than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari.

GR NO. 143721

2005-08-31

TERESITA E. VILLALUZ v. ROLANDO R. LIGON

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

To determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping, the most important question to ask is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present or whether a final judgment in one case will result to res judicata in another.[33] Otherwise stated, to determine forum shopping, the test is to see whether in the two or more cases pending, there is identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought.[34]

	GR No. 171897 2015-10-14	PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY v. FLORO ROXAS JARDELEZA, J.
Finally, we observe that PTC appears to have willfully engaged in forum shopping. PTC, in its own words, opposed the execution of the Bataan RTC decision because '"the Decision promulgated on September 4, 1990 by the RTC of Manila, Branch 40 [in Civil Case No. 130783] denied Petitioner's counterclaims."[39] Forum shopping is committed by a party who, having received an adverse judgment in one forum, seeks another opinion in another court, other than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari. More accurately, forum shopping is the institution of two or more suits in different courts, either simultaneously or successively, in order to ask the courts to rule on the same or related causes and/or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs.[40]
	GR No. 175278 2015-09-23	GSIS FAMILY BANK - THRIFT BANK v. BPI FAMILY BANK JARDELEZA, J.
In this case, the fact that respondent filed a case before the DTI was made known to petitioner[71] long before the SEC rendered its decision. Yet, despite its knowledge, petitioner failed to question the alleged forum shopping before the SEC. The exceptions to the general rule that forum shopping should be raised in the earliest opportunity, as explained in the cited case of Young v. Keng Seng,[72] do not obtain in this case.
	GR No. 171247 2015-07-22	ALFREDO L. VILLAMOR v. AMELIA C. MANALASTAS BRION, J.
As a rule, forum shopping is committed by a party who, having received an adverse judgment in one forum, seeks another opinion in another court other than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari. Conceptually, forum shopping is the institution of two or more suits in different courts, either simultaneously or successively, in order to ask the courts to rule on the same or related causes and/or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs.[27]
	GR No. 195594 2014-09-29	REPUBLIC v. SPS. ROGELIO LAZO AND DOLORES LAZO PERALTA, J.
Forum shopping is committed by a party who, having received an adverse judgment in one forum, seeks another opinion in another court, other than by appeal or special civil action of certiorari.[39] It is the institution of two or more suits in different courts, either simultaneously or successively, in order to ask the courts to rule on the same or related causes and/or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs.[40] In a fairly recent case,[41] the Court reiterated: There is forum shopping "when 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 that is prohibited and condemned because it trifles with the courts and abuses their processes. 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.
	GR No. 179691 2013-12-04	PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS v. MARY ANN O. YEUNG BRION, J.
The petitioner's argument that the respondent is guilty of forum shopping by not disclosing the pendency of the case for nullity of foreclosure sale deserves scant consideration. Forum shopping is committed by a party who, having received an adverse judgment in one forum, seeks another opinion in another court, other than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari. It is the institution of two or more suits in different courts, either simultaneously or successively, in order to ask the courts to rule on the same or related causes and/or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs.[30]
	GR No. 186730 2012-06-13	JESSE YAP v. CA REYES, J.
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; otherwise stated, the test for determining forum shopping is whether in the two (or more) cases pending, there is identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought.[15]
	GR No. 171525 2010-07-23	ST. CATHERINE REALTY CORPORATION v. FERDINAND Y. PINEDA CARPIO, J.
Forum shopping is the institution of two or more suits in different courts, either simultaneously or successively, in order to ask the courts to rule on the same or related causes or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs.[17] It is an act of malpractice that is prohibited and condemned because it trifles with the courts and abuses their processes.[18] It degrades the administration of justice and adds to the already congested court dockets.[19] Its requisites are: (1) identity of parties, or at least such parties who represent the same interests in both actions; (2) identity of the rights asserted and the relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (3) identity of the two preceding particulars such that any judgment rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other.[20]
	GR No. 156797 2010-07-06	IN RE: RECONSTITUTION OF TRANSFER CERTIFICATES OF TITLE NOS. 303168 BERSAMIN, J.
In Young v Keng Seng,[20] which involved a false certification of non-forum shopping, the Court cogently held that: The foregoing certification is obviously inaccurate, if not downright false, because it does not disclose the filing of the First Case. Had this violation been appropriately brought up in the Motion to Dismiss, it could have resulted in the abatement of the Second case.
	GR Nos. 189431 & 191120 2010-04-07	MAYOR QUINTIN B. SALUDAGA v. COMELEC VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Forum shopping is the institution of two (2) or more suits in different courts, either simultaneously or successively, in order to ask the courts to rule on the same or related causes and/or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs.[23] There is forum shopping when as a result of an adverse decision in one (1) forum, or in anticipation thereof, a party seeks favorable opinion in another forum through means other than appeal or certiorari.[24]
	GR No. 173931 2009-04-02	ALICIA D. TAGARO v. ESTER A. GARCIA TINGA, J.
Ordinarily, a dismissal on the ground of forum shopping dispenses with the need to address the other issues raised in the case. But this rule is not hard-and-fast, more so since the dismissal occasioned by breach of the anti-forum shopping rule does not permeate the merits of the case. Where such technical dismissal would otherwise lead to an inequitable result, the appropriate recourse is to resolve the issue concerned on its merit or resort to the principles of equity. After all, rules of procedure should not operate at all times in such a rigid way that would override the ends of substantial justice. Specifically, the rule on forum shopping was cobbled to foster and accelerate the orderly administration of justice and, therefore, should not be interpreted literally in every instance.[44]
	GR No. 174290 2009-01-20	ST. MARY OF WOODS SCHOOL v. OFFICE OF REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF MAKATI CITY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Forum shopping is committed by a party who, having received an adverse judgment in one forum, seeks another opinion in another court, other than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari. More accurately, however, forum shopping is the institution of two or more suits in different courts, either simultaneously or successively, in order to ask the courts to rule on the same or related causes and/or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs.[53] The essence of forum-shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, to secure a favorable judgment. Forum-shopping is present when in the two or more cases pending, there is identity of parties, rights of action and reliefs sought.[54]
	GR No. 172449 2008-08-20	LAZARO MADARA v. NORMA C. PERELLO BRION, J.
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. 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.[34] Willful and deliberate violation of the rule against it is a ground for summary dismissal of the case; it may also constitute direct contempt."[35]
	GR No. 163208 2008-08-13	HEIRS OF JUAN VALDEZ v. CA BRION, J.
That the CA could also require the respondents to comment, with the obligation on the part of the petitioner to undertake rectification, is not without support from established jurisprudence. In several cases,[16] we allowed initiatory pleadings or petitions with initially defective verifications and certifications of non-forum shopping on the ground of substantial compliance.[17] We reasoned that strict compliance with the requirement merely underscores its mandatory nature, in that, it cannot be dispensed with or its requirements altogether disregarded.[18] Thus, we have held that the subsequent submission of the required documents (such as the secretary's certificate) constituted substantial compliance with the procedural rules that justified relaxation of the requirements in the interest of justice.[19]
	GR NO. 157629 2007-03-22	J & N SHIPPING LINES v. TECHNOMARINE CO. SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In filing the second complaint, respondents did not certify under oath therein that they have not filed any complaint involving the same issues with any court. Pursuant to the above provision, the second complaint was dismissible on the ground of forum shopping. Engaging in forum shopping cannot be countenanced as it degrades the administration of justice and adds to the already congested court dockets.[6] In SK Realty, Inc., et al. v. Uy,[7] we held:A party is guilty of forum shopping where he repetitively availed 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. (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 156132 2006-10-16	CITIBANK v. MODESTA R. SABENIANO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Forum shopping has been defined as the filing of two or more suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment.[22] The test for determining forum shopping is whether in the two (or more) cases pending, there is an identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and relief sought.[23] To guard against this deplorable practice, Rule 7, Section 5 of the revised Rules of Court imposes the following requirement -
	GR NO. 143217 2005-12-14	AMANDO S. SAN JUAN v. MIGUEL L. ARAMBULO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
SO ORDERED." Moreover, in Young vs. Keng Seng,[7] we held that forum shopping is committed by a party who, having received an adverse judgment in one forum, seeks another opinion in another court, other than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari.
	GR NO. 143721 2005-08-31	TERESITA E. VILLALUZ v. ROLANDO R. LIGON AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
To determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping, the most important question to ask is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present or whether a final judgment in one case will result to res judicata in another.[33] Otherwise stated, to determine forum shopping, the test is to see whether in the two or more cases pending, there is identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought.[34]

EMILIO S. YOUNG v. JOHN KENG SENG