Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GLORIA S. DY v. MANDY COMMODITIES CO.

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 175507 2014-10-08	RAMON CHING v. JOSEPH CHENG LEONEN, J.
Because of the severity of the penalty of the rule, an examination must first.be made on the purpose of the rule. Parties resort to forum shopping when they file several actions of the same claim in different forums in the hope of obtaining a favorable result. It is prohibited by the courts as it "trifle[s] with the orderly administration of justice."[90]
	GR No. 184079 2013-04-17	SPS. ARMANDO SILVERIO v. SPS. RICARDO AND EVELYN MARCELO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Forum shopping is a deplorable practice of litigants consisting of resort to two different fora for the purpose of obtaining the same relief, to increase the chances of obtaining a favorable judgment.[39] The grave evil sought to be avoided by the rule against forum shopping is the rendition by two competent tribunals of two separate and contradictory decisions.[40]
	GR No. 166660 2012-08-29	DOROTEA CATAYAS v. CA MENDOZA, J.
"The grave evil sought to be avoided by the rule against forum shopping is the rendition by two competent tribunals of two separate and contradictory decisions. Unscrupulous party litigants, taking advantage of a variety of competent tribunals, may repeatedly try their luck in several different fora until a favorable result is reached. To avoid the resultant confusion, this Court strictly adheres to the rules against forum shopping, and any violation of these rules results in the dismissal of a case."[15]
	GR No. 193415 2012-04-18	SPS. DAISY AND SOCRATES M. AREVALO v. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK SERENO, J.
We emphasize that the grave evil sought to be avoided by the rule against forum-shopping is the rendition by two competent tribunals of two separate and contradictory decisions.[59] To avoid any confusion, this Court adheres strictly to the rules against forum shopping, and any violation of these rules results in the dismissal of a case.[60] The acts committed and described herein can possibly constitute direct contempt.[61]
	GR No. 184225 2009-09-04	SPS. ROGELIO F. LOPEZ AND TEOTIMA G. LOPEZ v. SPS. SAMUEL R. ESPINOSA AND ANGELITA S. ESPINOSA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In Dy v. Mandy Commodities Co., Inc.,[19] the Court held that there is forcible entry or desahucio when one is deprived of physical possession of land or building by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. The basic inquiry centers on who has the prior possession de facto. The plaintiff must prove that he was in prior possession and that he was deprived thereof.