Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SOLID HOMES v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR NO. 153936 2007-03-02	ROSARIO M. REYES v. ALSONS DEVELOPMENT GARCIA, J.
It is petitioner's submission that the element of identity of causes of action does not, under the premises, obtain because the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 32449 is for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, whereas CA-G.R. SP No. 68007 is a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules based on lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner's posture is untenable. As earlier explained, the identicality of the issues raised in both cases is unmistakable. The same relief is in fact sought in both cases, i.e., to annul the orders, writs and processes issued by RTC-Davao-8 to enforce the decision of the MTCC in Civil Case No. 3781-G. The differing designations of the petitions thus filed, i.e., certiorari for the first, and for annulment of judgment for the second, are really of no moment. For, it is not the caption of the pleading but the allegations therein made that determine the nature of the action and the court shall grant relief warranted by the allegations.[27]
	GR No. 147394 2004-08-11	SPS. MANUEL AND ROSEMARIE WEE v. ROSARIO D. GALVEZ QUISUMBING, J.
Forum shopping "occurs when a party attempts to have his action tried in a particular court or jurisdiction where he feels he will receive the most favorable judgment or verdict."[22] In our jurisdiction, it has taken the form of filing multiple petitions or complaints involving the same issues before two or more tribunals or agencies in the hope that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.[23] There is also forum shopping when, because of an adverse decision in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another.[24] The rationale against forum shopping is that a party should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in two different fora. Filing multiple petitions or complaints constitutes abuse of court processes,[25] which tends to degrade the administration of justice, wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial procedure, and adds to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts.[26] Thus, the rule proscribing forum shopping seeks to promote candor and transparency among lawyers and their clients in the pursuit of their cases before the courts to promote the orderly administration of justice, prevent undue inconvenience upon the other party, and save the precious time of the courts. It also aims to prevent the embarrassing situation of two or more courts or agencies rendering conflicting resolutions or decisions upon the same issue.[27] It is in this light that we must look at the propriety and correctness of the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping signed by Grace Galvez on the respondent's behalf. We have examined said Certificate[28] and find that under the circumstances, it does not negate but instead serves the purpose of the rule against forum shopping, namely to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice.
	GR No. 129313 2001-10-10	SPS. MA. CRISTINA D. TIRONA AND OSCAR TIRONA v. FLORO P. ALEJO AS PRESIDING JUDGE QUISUMBING, J.
To determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping, the test applied is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another.[23] Recall that as earlier discussed, the requisites of litis pendentia barred the filing of Civil Cases Nos. 6632 and 6633 given the pendency of DARAB Case No. IV-MM-0099-95R. Based thereon, the Regional Trial Court correctly dismissed the forcible entry cases on the additional ground of forum shopping.
	GR No. 141427 2001-04-20	RAMONITO TANTOY v. CA BELLOSILLO, J.
Forum shopping has been characterized as an act of malpractice that is prohibited and condemned as trifling with the courts and abusing their processes. It constitutes improper conduct which tends to degrade the administration of justice. It has also been aptly described as deplorable because it adds to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts.[10] In petitioner's deliberate attempt to obtain the same reliefs in two (2) different courts, he was obviously shopping for a "friendly" forum which would capitulate to his improvident plea for a temporary restraining order and was thus trifling with the judicial process.[11]