This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2003-09-11 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| This argument is patently misplaced. For precisely, the concurrent pleadings of TOP RATE and its lawyers exhibit the element of litis pendentia and res judicata alleged by them to be absent, i.e., the result of the first action is determinative of the second action in any event and regardless of which party is successful, since the action of this Court on the Petition for Review will surely bind the other pending action on the same cause in the court a quo. Moreover, how can this Court still resolve on appeal such "subsequent" decision when it has already decided with finality the same cause upon which the "later" decision was supposedly based? The purported review by this Court of the "ensuing" decision would have been barred by res judicata. Incidentally, in Crisostomo v. Securities and Exchange Commission[45] where forum shopping was detected, the infringing cases were filed with the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. | |||||