This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2016-01-13 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Section 5 Rule 7 of the Rules prohibits forum shopping. The rule against forum shopping seeks to address the great evil of two competent tribunals rendering two separate and contradictory decisions.[27] Forum shopping exists when a party initiates two or more actions, other than appeal or certiorari, grounded on the same cause to obtain a more favorable decision from any tribunal.[28] | |||||
|
2015-07-08 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| While the Court is fully aware of the consequences of forum shopping, as well as its animating policy, which is to stamp out the abominable practice of trifling with the administration of justice,[104] the circumstances obtaining in the instant case nevertheless distinctly call for a deviation from the general rule in order to further the ends of substantial justice. | |||||
|
2014-08-06 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The rule is that "when a decision becomes final and executory, it becomes valid and binding upon the parties and their successors in interest."[21] Such being the case, Castro, which already determined with finality the respondents' ownership of the residential house in question, is applicable and binding in this case and the petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the same. Thus, as correctly ruled by the CA, "[t]o our mind, the pronouncement resolving the said issue necessarily touches also the issue on the ownership of the building. x x x The finding of the Court [in Castro], now being final and executory, is no longer open for inquiry and therefore, has attained its immutability."[22] | |||||