This case has been cited 20 times or more.
|
2015-01-21 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another. The principle applies not only with respect to suits filed in the courts but also in connection with litigations commenced in the courts while an administrative proceeding is pending[.][43] (Citation omitted) | |||||
|
2015-01-21 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| [u]ltimately, what is truly important to consider in determining whether forum-shopping exists or not is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigant by a party who asks different courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related causes and/or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issue.[49] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2015-01-14 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Forum non conveniens literally translates to "the forum is inconvenient."[62] It is a concept in private international law and was devised to combat the "less than honorable" reasons and excuses that litigants use to secure procedural advantages, annoy and harass defendants, avoid overcrowded dockets, and select a "friendlier" venue.[63] Thus, the doctrine of forum non conveniens addresses the same rationale that the rule against forum shopping does, albeit on a multijurisdictional scale. | |||||
|
2015-01-14 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Accordingly, under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, "a court, in conflicts of law cases, may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the most 'convenient' or available forum and the parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere."[67] In Puyat v. Zabarte,[68] this court recognized the following situations as among those that may warrant a court's desistance from exercising jurisdiction: 1) The belief that the matter can be better tried and decided elsewhere, either because the main aspects of the case transpired in a foreign jurisdiction or the material witnesses have their residence there; 2) The belief that the non-resident plaintiff sought the forum[,] a practice known as forum shopping[,] merely to secure procedural advantages or to convey or harass the defendant; 3) The unwillingness to extend local judicial facilities to non residents or aliens when the docket may already be overcrowded; 4) The inadequacy of the local judicial machinery for effectuating the right sought to be maintained; and 5) The difficulty of ascertaining foreign law.[69] | |||||
|
2015-01-14 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| The use of the word "may" (i.e., "may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction"[72]) in the decisions shows that the matter of jurisdiction rests on the sound discretion of a court. Neither the mere invocation of forum non conveniens nor the averment of foreign elements operates to automatically divest a court of jurisdiction. Rather, a court should renounce jurisdiction only "after 'vital facts are established, to determine whether special circumstances' require the court's desistance."[73] As the propriety of applying forum non conveniens is contingent on a factual determination, it is, therefore, a matter of defense.[74] | |||||
|
2010-06-22 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| What is truly important to consider in determining whether forum shopping exists or not is the vexation caused to the courts and the litigants by a party who accesses different courts and administrative agencies to rule on the same or related causes or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issue.[20] | |||||
|
2010-01-21 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| All these go to show that ABS-CBN acted with patent bad faith. A close parallel we can draw to characterize this bad faith is the prohibition against forum-shopping under the Rules of Court. In forum-shopping, the Rules characterize as bad faith the act of filing similar and repetitive actions for the same cause with the intent of somehow finding a favorable ruling in one of the actions filed.[35] ABS-CBN's actions in the two cases, as described above, are of the same character, since its obvious intent was to defeat and render useless, in a roundabout way and other than through the appeal it had taken, the labor arbiter's decision in the regularization case. Forum-shopping is penalized by the dismissal of the actions involved. The penalty against ABS-CBN for its bad faith in the present case should be no less. | |||||
|
2008-11-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Forum shopping has been defined as the "institution of two (2) or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition" or "the act of a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum, of seeking another (and possibly favorable) opinion in another forum other than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari."[11] The test in determining the presence of forum shopping is whether in the two or more cases pending, there is identity of: (a) parties; (b) rights or causes of action; and (c) reliefs sought,[12] such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res adjudicata in the action under consideration: all the requisites, in fine, of auter action pendant.[13] | |||||
|
2008-08-22 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The petitioner cites in support of his position the cases of Silahis International, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[4] Tantoy Sr. v. Court of Appeals,[5] and First Philippine International Bank v. Court of Appeals.[6] Silahis was cited for the proposition that only one recourse - the appeal - should have been filed because the issues were inter-related. Tantoy, Sr. spoke of related causes or the same or substantially the same reliefs in considering whether there is forum shopping. On the other hand, First Philippine International Bank was cited to emphasize that the key to a finding of forum shopping is the objective of the relief; though differently worded, there is violation of the rule against forum shopping if the objective in all the actions filed involves the same relief - in this case, the setting aside of the Order of April 3, 2002. The petitioner noted that the respondents had succeeded in obtaining this relief in their petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus (CA-G.R. SP No. 70349) and the ruling in this petition already constituted res judicata on the validity of the Order of April 3, 2002. | |||||
|
2008-07-31 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| It is well to note that forum shopping traces its origin in private international law on choice of venues, which later developed to a choice of remedies. In First Philippine International Bank v. Court of Appeals,[50] the Court had occasion to outline the origin of the rule on forum shopping. Said the Court:x x x forum shopping originated as a concept in private international law, where non-resident litigants are given the option to choose the forum or place wherein to bring their suit for various reasons or excuses, including to secure procedural advantages, to annoy and harass the defendant, to avoid overcrowded dockets, or to select a more friendly venue. To combat these less than honorable excuses, the principle of forum non conveniens was developed whereby a court, in conflicts of law cases, may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the most "convenient" or available forum and the parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere. | |||||
|
2008-07-14 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The authority of a corporate officer or agent in dealing with third persons may be actual or apparent. The doctrine of "apparent authority," with special reference to banks, had long been recognized in this jurisdiction.[35] Apparent authority is derived not merely from practice. Its existence may be ascertained through 1) the general manner in which the corporation holds out an officer or agent as having the power to act, or in other words, the apparent authority to act in general, with which it clothes him; or 2) the acquiescence in his acts of a particular nature, with actual or constructive knowledge thereof, within or beyond the scope of his ordinary powers.[36] | |||||
|
2008-07-09 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Nor can we agree that petitioner was guilty of forum-shopping. Under the Same Objective Standard enunciated in the case of First Philippine International Bank v. Court of Appeals,[33] the filing by a party of two apparently different actions, but with the same objective, constitutes forum- shopping.[34] Here, the special civil action of certiorari before us is an independent action. The ultimate purpose of such action is to keep the inferior tribunal within the bounds of its jurisdiction or relieve parties from arbitrary acts of the court.[35] In contrast, the petition for review before the Court of Appeals under Rule 42 involves an evaluation of the case on the merits. Clearly, petitioner did not commit forum-shopping. | |||||
|
2007-09-12 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Lastly, we cannot sustain petitioner's claim that respondent is guilty of multiple forum shopping. There is forum shopping where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other.[53] True, respondent had previously instituted quo warranto proceedings involving the same contested position, and her petitions had been dismissed with finality by this Court. We, however, find that the issue in the instant case is based on a different set of facts. | |||||
|
2007-03-02 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| We defined forum shopping as the "institution of two (2) or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition" or "the act of a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum, of seeking another (and possibly favorable) opinion in another forum other than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari."[21] In First Philippine International Bank v. Court of Appeals,[22] we held that the test to determine whether forum shopping exists is whether the elements of litis pendencia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. Res judicata means a matter or thing adjudged, judicially acted upon or decided, or settled by judgment. Its requisites are: (1) the former judgment or order must be final; (2) the judgment or order must be one on the merits; (3) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties; and (4) between the first and second actions, there must be identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action.[23] Thus, in First Philippine International Bank, we explained further:Consequently, where a litigant (or one representing the same interest or person) sues the same party against whom another action or actions for the alleged violation of the same right and the enforcement of the same relief is/are still pending, the defense of litis pendencia in one case is a bar to the others; and, a final judgment in one would constitute res judicata and thus would cause the dismissal of the rest. In either case, forum shopping could be cited by the other party as a ground to ask for summary dismissal of the two (or more) complaints or petitions, and for the imposition of the other sanctions, which are direct contempt of court, criminal prosecution, and disciplinary action against the erring lawyer.[24] | |||||
|
2006-10-23 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| Forum shopping is the "institution of two (2) or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition" or "the act of a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum, of seeking another (and possibly favorable) opinion in another forum other than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari."[17] In Gatmaytan v. Court of Appeals, we found that there is forum shopping when [a party] "repetitively availed 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 (emphasis supplied)."[18] Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other.[19] | |||||
|
2006-07-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| RBSI principally raises questions of fact that have been settled by the court a quo. As a general rule, questions of fact are not covered by a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court because it is limited to a review of errors of law committed by the appellate court especially so in the case at bar where the findings of fact of the trial court and Court of Appeals coincide and are, thus, binding on this Court.[8] However, RBSI claims that the instant case falls under recognized exceptions to this general rule because the lower courts' conclusions are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures,[9] and are based on a misapprehension of facts.[10] | |||||
|
2006-02-23 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The contention that complainant violated the rule against forum shopping with the filing of this administrative complaint is bereft of merit. There is forum-shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another[24] or when he institutes 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.[25] Forum shopping applies only to judicial cases or proceedings, not to disbarment proceedings.[26] Moreover, Criminal Case Nos. 6-367-03 to 6-373-03 for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 refer to the respondent's act of making or drawing and issuance of worthless checks; while the present administrative case seeks to discipline respondent as a lawyer for his dishonest act of failing to pay his debt in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. | |||||
|
2005-11-11 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The MTC ruled that it had jurisdiction over the action: the property subject matter of the case was the house occupied by the defendant, while the subject matter of DARAB Case No. 4471 was the landholding and the issue therein was whether Ramos was an agricultural tenant on the property. The MTC held that the issue before it was limited to who, as between the parties, had the right of possession over the two-storey building situated on the property. Thus, even if the DARAB ruled that Ramos was a tenant, he would still not be entitled to possess the house. Besides, according to the court, Ramos failed to prove that he was an agricultural tenant on the landholding. Citing Atienza v. Court of Appeals[14] and First Philippine International Bank v. Court of Appeals,[15] the MTC maintained that the case before it and DARAB Case No. 4471 could proceed independently of each other. | |||||
|
2005-09-13 |
|||||
| What is truly important to consider 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 causes and/or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issues.[12] | |||||
|
2000-08-31 |
BUENA, J. |
||||
| res judicata, the same nonetheless falls under lids pendentia. For litis pendentia to be a ground for dismissal of an action, three elements must concur: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties who represent the same interest in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity, with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases, is 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. All the three requisites are present herein. The parties are the same; the relief sought in the motion before the trial court and in the petition in the Court of Appeals are the same, that is, inclusion of alleged fraudulently concealed properties; and, both are premised on the same facts which seek an alteration of the terms of the compromise agreement. The judgment of either court will constitute a bar to the other. It has been held that where a litigant sues the same party against whom the same action, or actions, for the alleged violation of the same right, and the enforcement of the same relief is/are still pending, the defense of litis pendentia in one case is a bar to the other; and a final judgment in one would constitute res judicata and thus, would cause the dismissal of the rest.[5] With respect to the extrinsic fraud which allegedly concurred when private respondent duped petitioner into signing the compromise agreement, the same involves factual matters and should be properly ascertained in a proceeding for determination of facts. It has been | |||||