Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIP S. YU v. HERNAN G. LIM

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 180147 2014-06-04	SARA LEE PHILIPPINES v. EMILINDA D. MACATLANG PEREZ, J.
What is pivotal in determining whether forum shopping exists or not is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related cases and/or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different courts and/or administrative agencies upon the same issues.[39]
	GR No. 187317 2013-04-11	CARLITO C. ENCINAS v. PO1 ALFREDO P. AGUSTIN SERENO, C.J.
We do not agree with petitioner. In Yu v. Lim,[78] this Court enumerated the requisites of forum-shopping as follows: Forum-shopping exists when the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. Litis pendentia requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) identity of parties, or at least such parties as those representing the same interests in both actions; (2) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts; and (3) identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases, such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other case.[79] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 184681 2013-02-25	GERRY A. SALAPUDDIN v. CA VELASCO JR., J.
Thus, pursuant to the last paragraph of Section 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, if the Secretary of Justice reverses or modifies the resolution of the investigating prosecutor(s), he or she can direct the prosecutor(s) concerned "to dismiss or move for dismissal of the complaint or information with notice to the parties."[120] This action is not subject to the review of courts unless there is a showing that the Secretary of Justice has committed a grave abuse of his discretion amounting to an excess or lack of jurisdiction in issuing the challenged resolution.[121]
	GR No. 193857 2012-11-28	MA. MERCEDES L. BARBA v. LICEO DE CAGAYAN UNIVERSITY VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Lastly, as to whether respondent was guilty of forum shopping when it failed to inform the appellate court of the pendency of Civil Case No. 2009-320, a complaint for breach of contract filed by respondent against petitioner, we rule in the negative. Forum shopping exists when the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. Litis pendentia requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) identity of parties, or at least such parties as those representing the same interests in both actions; (2) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts; and (3) identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases, such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other case.[40]
	GR No. 166259 2012-11-12	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HONEYCOMB FARMS CORPORATION BRION, J.
In Yu v. Lim,[44] we enumerated the requisites of forum shopping, as follows: Forum shopping exists when the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. Litis pendentia requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) identity of parties, or at least such parties as those representing the same interests in both actions; (2) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts; and (3) identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases, such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other case.
	GR No. 193415 2012-04-18	SPS. DAISY AND SOCRATES M. AREVALO v. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK SERENO, J.
In Yu v. Lim,[54] this Court enumerated the requisites of forum-shopping, as follows: Forum-shopping exists when the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. Litis pendentia requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) identity of parties, or at least such parties as those representing the same interests in both actions; (2) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts; and (3) identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases, such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other case.[55]
	GR No. 184015 2012-02-08	SPS. MARIANO P. MARASIGAN AND JOSEFINA LEAL v. CHEVRON PHILS. MENDOZA, J.
What is pivotal in determining whether forum shopping exists or not is the vexation caused to the courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related cases and/or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different courts and/or administrative agencies upon the same issues.[7]
	GR No. 190231 2010-12-08	ASIA UNITED BANK v. GOODLAND COMPANY CORONA, C.J.
Forum shopping is the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the supposition that one or the other court would render a favorable disposition.[27] It exists when the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another.[28]