This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-10-15 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Forum shopping is manifest whenever a party "repetitively avail[s] 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." It has also been defined as "an act of a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum of seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion in another forum, other than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari, or the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition." Considered a pernicious evil, it adversely affects the efficient administration of justice since it clogs the court dockets, unduly burdens the financial and human resources of the judiciary, and trifles with and mocks judicial processes.[26] | |||||
|
2004-11-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We note that the cited complaint was filed before the NLRC Resolution No. 01-02 amended the NLRC Rules of Procedure.[13] The NLRC Rules of Procedure now requires a declaration of non-forum shopping in the complaint. But this is not to say that the certificate of non-forum shopping was not required then. At the time the complaint was filed, the same was subject to Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94, now Section 5 of Rule 7 of the Rules of Court.[14] We have established in previous cases[15] that compliance with the Circular was mandatory even in labor cases. In the landmark case of Maricalum Mining Corp. v. NLRC[16] we held that:The certificate of non-forum shopping as provided by this Court Circular 04-94 is mandatory and should accompany pleadings filed before the NLRC. Court Circular No. 04-94 is clear and needs no further interpretation, viz: | |||||