This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-03-14 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court requires every litigant to notify the court of the filing or pendency of a complaint involving the same or similar action or claim within five days of learning of that fact. While both Civil Case Nos. B-6242 and B-7110 were raffled to the same court, the RTC of Biñan, Laguna, Branch 25, respondent did not report the filing of Civil Case No. B-7110 in the proceedings of Civil Case No. 6242. This fact clearly established respondent's furtive intent to conceal the filing of Civil Case No. B-7110 for the purpose of securing a favorable judgment. For this reason, Civil Case No. 6242 was correctly dismissed with prejudice.[28] (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2011-03-09 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Goodland filed an appeal[31] of the dismissal to the CA, which appeal was granted. The CA ordered on August 11, 2009 the reinstatement of the Annulment Case in the trial court.[32] | |||||
|
2011-03-09 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The recent development in Asia United Bank v. Goodland Company, Inc.,[45] which involved substantially the same parties and the same issue is another reason for Goodland's loss in the instant case. The issue that Goodland committed deliberate forum shopping when it successively filed the Annulment and Injunction Cases against AUB and its officers was decided with finality therein. This ruling is conclusive on the petitioners and Goodland considering that they are substantially the same parties in that earlier case. | |||||