Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 193494 2014-03-07	LUI ENTERPRISES v. ZUELLIG PHARMA CORPORATION LEONEN, J.
Litis pendentia is Latin for "a pending suit."[140] It exists when "another action is pending between the same parties for the same cause of action x x x."[141] The subsequent action is "unnecessary and vexatious"[142] and is instituted to "harass the respondent [in the subsequent action]."[143]
	GR No. 193494 2014-03-07	LUI ENTERPRISES v. ZUELLIG PHARMA CORPORATION LEONEN, J.
All of the requisites must be present.[145] Absent one requisite, there is no litis pendentia.[146]
	GR NO. 163786 2005-02-16	TIMES TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. SANTOS SOTELO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Litis pendencia as a ground for dismissal of an action refers to that situation wherein another action is pending between the same parties for the same cause of action and the second action becomes unnecessary and vexatious.[16] We agree with the findings of the Court of Appeals that there is no litis pendencia as the two cases involve dissimilar causes of action. The first case, now pending with the Third Division, pertains to the alleged error of the NLRC in not upholding the dismissal of all the striking employees (not only of the 23 strikers so declared to have lost their employment) in spite of the latter's ruling that the second strike was illegal. None of the respondents herein were among those deemed terminated by virtue of the NLRC decision.