Lawyerly

GR No. 207286

2015-07-29

BRION, J.

There is also no identity of causes of action in the first complaint and in the second complaint. In Yap v. Chua,[17] we held that the test to determine whether causes of action are identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence would support both actions, or whether there is an identity in the facts essential to the maintenance of the two actions. If the same facts or evidence would support both actions, then they are considered the same; a judgment in the first case would be a bar to the subsequent action.

GR No. 190983

2015-07-29

SURENDRA GOBINDRAM DASWANI v. BANCO DE ORO UNIVERSAL BANK

BRION, J.

In Yap v. Chua,[20] the Court elaborately explained the nature of forum shopping, to wit:Forum shopping is the institution of two or more actions or proceedings involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. Forum shopping [is] resorted to by any party against whom an adverse judgment or order has been issued in one forum, in an attempt to seek a favorable opinion in another, other than by appeal or a special civil action for certiorari.[21] [Emphasis supplied.]

GR No. 186322

2015-07-08

ENRICO S. EULOGIO v. PATERNO C. BELL

SERENO, C.J.

The settled rule, however, is that identity of causes of action does not mean absolute identity. Otherwise, a party could easily escape the operation of res judicata by changing the form of the action or the relief sought.[35] The test to determine whether the causes of action are identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence will sustain both actions, or whether there is an identity of the facts essential to the maintenance of the two actions. If the same facts or evidence would sustain both, the two actions are considered the same, and a judgment in the first case would be a bar to the subsequent action. Hence, a party cannot, by varying the form of action or adopting a different method of presenting the case, escape the operation of the principle that one and the same cause of action shall not be twice litigated between the same parties or their privies.[36]

GR No. 202632

2015-07-08

ROBERTO STA. ANA DY v. BONIFACIO A. YU

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

To determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping, the most important factor to ask is whether the element of litis pendentia is 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.[92] If a situation of litis pendentia or res judicata arises by virtue of a party's commencement of a judicial remedy identical to one which already exists (either pending or already resolved), then a forum shopping infraction is committed.

GR No. 168616

2015-01-28

HOME GUARANTY CORPORATION v. LA SAVOIE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

LEONEN, J.

Equally settled is the test for determining forum shopping. As this court explained in Yap v. Chua:[60]

GR No. 168616

2015-01-28

HOME GUARANTY CORPORATION v. LA SAVOIE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

LEONEN, 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.[61]

GR No. 208462

2014-12-10

SPS. CARLOS J. SUNTAY v. KEYSER MERCANTILE

MENDOZA, J.

There is no forum shopping either in this case. To determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping, the elements of litis pendentia must be present, or the final judgment in one case amounts to res judicata in another.[19] Since there is no res judicata in this case, then there is no forum shopping either.

GR No. 175507

2014-10-08

RAMON CHING v. JOSEPH CHENG

LEONEN, J.

In Yap v. Chua:[81]

GR No. 175507

2014-10-08

RAMON CHING v. JOSEPH CHENG

LEONEN, J.

The requisites of litis pendentia are: (a) the identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interests in both actions; (b) the identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other.[85] (Emphasis supplied)

GR No. 197530

2014-07-09

ABOITIZ EQUITY VENTURES v. VICTOR S. CHIONGBIAN

LEONEN, J.

Equally settled is the test for determining forum shopping. As this court explained in Yap v. Chua:[82]

GR No. 197530

2014-07-09

ABOITIZ EQUITY VENTURES v. VICTOR S. CHIONGBIAN

LEONEN, 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.[83]

GR No. 186657

2014-06-11

DOMINGA B. QUITO v. STOP

BRION, J.

Litis pendentia refers to the situation where another action is pending between the same parties for the same cause of action so that one of these actions is unnecessary and vexatious.[11] The dismissal of a civil action on the ground of litis pendentia is based on the policy that a party is not allowed to vex another more than once regarding the same subject matter and for the same cause of action in order that possible conflicting judgments may be avoided for the sake of the stability of the rights and statuses of persons.[12]

GR No. 195580

2014-04-21

NARRA NICKEL MINING v. REDMONT CONSOLIDATED MINES CORP.

VELASCO JR., J.

Equally settled is the test for determining forum shopping. As this court explained in Yap v. Court of Appeals:[180]

GR No. 172909

2014-03-05

SPS. SILVESTRE O. PLAZA AND ELENA Y. PLAZA v. GUILLERMO LUSTIVA

BRION, J.

We agree with the CA that the petitioners committed forum shopping when they filed the specific performance case despite the pendency of the present case before the CA. In the recent case of Heirs of Marcelo Sotto, etc., et al. v. Matilde S. Palicte,[26] the Court laid down the three ways forum shopping may be committed: 1) through litis pendentia filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet; 2) through res judicata filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved; and 3) splitting of causes of action filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action but with different prayers the ground to dismiss being either litis pendentia or res judicata. "The requisites of litis pendentia are: (a) the identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interests in both actions; (b) the identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other."[27]

GR No. 190814

2013-10-09

MICHELLE LANA BROWN-ARANETA v. JUAN IGNACIO ARANETA

VELASCO JR., J.

A circumstance of forum shopping occurs when, as a result or in anticipation of an adverse decision in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion in another forum through means other than appeal or certiorari by raising identical causes of action, subject matter and issues. Stated a bit differently, forum shopping is the institution of two or more actions involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, on the supposition that one or the other court would come out with a favorable disposition.[33] An indicium of the presence of, or the test for determining whether a litigant violated the rule against, forum shopping is where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other case.[34]

GR No. 197937

2013-04-03

FILM DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF PHILIPPINES v. SM PRIME HOLDINGS

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

The underlying principle of litis pendentia is the theory that a party is not allowed to vex another more than once regarding the same subject matter and for the same cause of action. This theory is founded on the public policy that the same subject matter should not be the subject of controversy in courts more than once, in order that possible conflicting judgments may be avoided for the sake of the stability of the rights and status of persons,[25] and also to avoid the costs and expenses incident to numerous suits.[26]

GR No. 166259

2012-11-12

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HONEYCOMB FARMS CORPORATION

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 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.[43]

	GR No. 207286 2015-07-29	DELA ROSA LINER v. CALIXTO B. BORELA BRION, J.
There is also no identity of causes of action in the first complaint and in the second complaint. In Yap v. Chua,[17] we held that the test to determine whether causes of action are identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence would support both actions, or whether there is an identity in the facts essential to the maintenance of the two actions. If the same facts or evidence would support both actions, then they are considered the same; a judgment in the first case would be a bar to the subsequent action.
	GR No. 190983 2015-07-29	SURENDRA GOBINDRAM DASWANI v. BANCO DE ORO UNIVERSAL BANK BRION, J.
In Yap v. Chua,[20] the Court elaborately explained the nature of forum shopping, to wit:Forum shopping is the institution of two or more actions or proceedings involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. Forum shopping [is] resorted to by any party against whom an adverse judgment or order has been issued in one forum, in an attempt to seek a favorable opinion in another, other than by appeal or a special civil action for certiorari.[21] [Emphasis supplied.]
	GR No. 186322 2015-07-08	ENRICO S. EULOGIO v. PATERNO C. BELL SERENO, C.J.
The settled rule, however, is that identity of causes of action does not mean absolute identity. Otherwise, a party could easily escape the operation of res judicata by changing the form of the action or the relief sought.[35] The test to determine whether the causes of action are identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence will sustain both actions, or whether there is an identity of the facts essential to the maintenance of the two actions. If the same facts or evidence would sustain both, the two actions are considered the same, and a judgment in the first case would be a bar to the subsequent action. Hence, a party cannot, by varying the form of action or adopting a different method of presenting the case, escape the operation of the principle that one and the same cause of action shall not be twice litigated between the same parties or their privies.[36]
	GR No. 202632 2015-07-08	ROBERTO STA. ANA DY v. BONIFACIO A. YU PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
To determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping, the most important factor to ask is whether the element of litis pendentia is 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.[92] If a situation of litis pendentia or res judicata arises by virtue of a party's commencement of a judicial remedy identical to one which already exists (either pending or already resolved), then a forum shopping infraction is committed.
	GR No. 168616 2015-01-28	HOME GUARANTY CORPORATION v. LA SAVOIE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LEONEN, J.
Equally settled is the test for determining forum shopping. As this court explained in Yap v. Chua:[60]
	GR No. 168616 2015-01-28	HOME GUARANTY CORPORATION v. LA SAVOIE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LEONEN, 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.[61]
	GR No. 208462 2014-12-10	SPS. CARLOS J. SUNTAY v. KEYSER MERCANTILE MENDOZA, J.
There is no forum shopping either in this case. To determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping, the elements of litis pendentia must be present, or the final judgment in one case amounts to res judicata in another.[19] Since there is no res judicata in this case, then there is no forum shopping either.
	GR No. 175507 2014-10-08	RAMON CHING v. JOSEPH CHENG LEONEN, J.
In Yap v. Chua:[81]
	GR No. 175507 2014-10-08	RAMON CHING v. JOSEPH CHENG LEONEN, J.
The requisites of litis pendentia are: (a) the identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interests in both actions; (b) the identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other.[85] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 197530 2014-07-09	ABOITIZ EQUITY VENTURES v. VICTOR S. CHIONGBIAN LEONEN, J.
Equally settled is the test for determining forum shopping. As this court explained in Yap v. Chua:[82]
	GR No. 197530 2014-07-09	ABOITIZ EQUITY VENTURES v. VICTOR S. CHIONGBIAN LEONEN, 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.[83]
	GR No. 186657 2014-06-11	DOMINGA B. QUITO v. STOP BRION, J.
Litis pendentia refers to the situation where another action is pending between the same parties for the same cause of action so that one of these actions is unnecessary and vexatious.[11] The dismissal of a civil action on the ground of litis pendentia is based on the policy that a party is not allowed to vex another more than once regarding the same subject matter and for the same cause of action in order that possible conflicting judgments may be avoided for the sake of the stability of the rights and statuses of persons.[12]
	GR No. 195580 2014-04-21	NARRA NICKEL MINING v. REDMONT CONSOLIDATED MINES CORP. VELASCO JR., J.
Equally settled is the test for determining forum shopping. As this court explained in Yap v. Court of Appeals:[180]
	GR No. 172909 2014-03-05	SPS. SILVESTRE O. PLAZA AND ELENA Y. PLAZA v. GUILLERMO LUSTIVA BRION, J.
We agree with the CA that the petitioners committed forum shopping when they filed the specific performance case despite the pendency of the present case before the CA. In the recent case of Heirs of Marcelo Sotto, etc., et al. v. Matilde S. Palicte,[26] the Court laid down the three ways forum shopping may be committed: 1) through litis pendentia filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet; 2) through res judicata filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved; and 3) splitting of causes of action filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action but with different prayers the ground to dismiss being either litis pendentia or res judicata. "The requisites of litis pendentia are: (a) the identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interests in both actions; (b) the identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other."[27]
	GR No. 190814 2013-10-09	MICHELLE LANA BROWN-ARANETA v. JUAN IGNACIO ARANETA VELASCO JR., J.
A circumstance of forum shopping occurs when, as a result or in anticipation of an adverse decision in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion in another forum through means other than appeal or certiorari by raising identical causes of action, subject matter and issues. Stated a bit differently, forum shopping is the institution of two or more actions involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, on the supposition that one or the other court would come out with a favorable disposition.[33] An indicium of the presence of, or the test for determining whether a litigant violated the rule against, forum shopping is where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other case.[34]
	GR No. 197937 2013-04-03	FILM DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF PHILIPPINES v. SM PRIME HOLDINGS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The underlying principle of litis pendentia is the theory that a party is not allowed to vex another more than once regarding the same subject matter and for the same cause of action. This theory is founded on the public policy that the same subject matter should not be the subject of controversy in courts more than once, in order that possible conflicting judgments may be avoided for the sake of the stability of the rights and status of persons,[25] and also to avoid the costs and expenses incident to numerous suits.[26]
	GR No. 166259 2012-11-12	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HONEYCOMB FARMS CORPORATION 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 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.[43]

JESSE YAP v. CA