Lawyerly

GR No. 195546

2012-03-14

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

There is forum shopping when the following elements are present: "(a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions[;] (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts[;] and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars[,] such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration; said requisites [are] also constitutive of the requisites for auter action pendant or lis pendens."[23] The essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment, through means other than by appeal or certiorari.[24]

GR No. 168313

2010-10-06

BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CA

BRION, J.

We end this Decision by quoting our parting words in Melo v. Court of Appeals:[56]

GR No. 183788

2010-04-05

KRIZIA KATRINA TY-DE ZUZUARREGUI v. JOSELITO C. VILLAROSA

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Generally, subsequent compliance with the requirement of a certification of non-forum shopping does not excuse a party from failure to comply in the first instance. [31] A certification of the plaintiff's counsel will not suffice for the reason that it is the petitioner, and not the counsel, who is in the best position to know whether he actually filed or caused the filing of a petition. [32] A certification against forum shopping signed by counsel is a defective certification that is equivalent to non-compliance with the requirement and constitutes a valid cause for the dismissal of the petition. [33]

GR NO. 165142

2007-12-10

EDUARDO L. RAYO v. METROPOLITAN BANK

QUISUMBING, J.

With regard to forum-shopping; forum-shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. It exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another.[29] The issuance of the writ of possession being a ministerial function, and summary in nature, it cannot be said to be a judgment on the merits. It is only an incident in the transfer of title. Hence, a separate case for annulment of mortgage and foreclosure sale cannot be barred by litis pendentia or res judicata.[30] Clearly, insofar as LRC Case No. Q-13915(01) and Civil Case No. Q02-46514 are concerned, Metrobank is not guilty of forum-shopping.

GR No. 174874

2007-10-04

GILBERT G. GUY v. ASIA UNITED BANK

GARCIA, J.

The essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment,[21] through means other than by appeal or certiorari.[22] The rule thus does not apply to cases that arise from an initiatory or original action which has been elevated by way of appeal or certiorari to higher or appellate courts or authorities. This is so not only because the issues in the appellate courts necessarily differ from those in the lower court, but also because the appealed cases are a continuation of the original case and treated as only one case. For, it would be absurd to require, say in this instant petition, to make mention in the certification against non-forum shopping the CA case that is being sought to be reviewed in the petition at bench.

GR NO. 135711

2007-08-02

MARIBETH CORDOVA v. CA

AZCUNA, J.

In Melo v. Court of Appeals,[13] this Court declared that the requirement under Administrative Circular No. 04-94 for a certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory. The subsequent compliance with this requirement does not excuse a party's failure to comply therewith in the first instance. In those cases where the Court excused non-compliance with the certificate requirement, special circumstances or compelling reasons existed, which made the strict application of the circular clearly inequitable.[14] In this case, however, petitioner's action hardly justifies a deviation from the mandatory nature of the afore-quoted provision. Hence, petitioner's complaint was clearly dismissible on the ground of forum shopping.

GR NO. 164459

2007-04-24

LIMITLESS POTENTIALS v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Forum shopping consists of filing multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment.[44] It exists where the elements of litis pendentia[45] are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another.[46] It may be resorted to by a party against whom an adverse judgment or order has been issued in one forum, in an attempt to seek a favorable opinion in another, other than by an appeal or a special civil action for certiorari.[47]

GR NO. 163511

2006-06-30

LEE HIONG WEE v. DEE PING WEE

GARCIA, J.

The essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same transaction and same essential facts and circumstances, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. 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 another,[12] implying that there is between the two cases identity of parties, rights asserted and reliefs sought.[13]

GR NO. 163569

2005-12-09

PHILIPPINE RADIANT PRODUCTS v. METROPOLITAN BANK

CALLEJO, SR., J.

SEC. 5. Certification against forum shopping. The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. It has been held that forum shopping is 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), or 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.[52] Thus, it has been held that there is forum shopping (1) when, as a result of an adverse decision in one forum, a party seeks a favorable decision (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another; or (2) if, after he has filed a petition before the Supreme Court, a party files a motion before the Court of Appeals, since in such a case, he deliberately splits appeals "in the hope that even on one case in which a particular allowable remedy sought for is dismissed, another case (offering a similar remedy) would still be open;" or (3) where a party attempts to obtain a preliminary injunction in another court after finality to obtain the same from the original court.[53] 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 another.[54]

GR NO. 141973

2005-06-28

PHILIPPINE PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER CORPORATION v. CIR

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Generally, subsequent compliance with the requirement of affidavit of non-forum shopping does not excuse a party from failure to comply in the first instance.[26]

GR NO. 152392

2005-05-26

EXPERTRAVEL v. CA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

It is settled that the requirement to file a certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory[8] and that the failure to comply with this requirement cannot be excused. The certification is a peculiar and personal responsibility of the party, an assurance given to the court or other tribunal that there are no other pending cases involving basically the same parties, issues and causes of action. Hence, the certification must be accomplished by the party himself because he has actual knowledge of whether or not he has initiated similar actions or proceedings in different courts or tribunals. Even his counsel may be unaware of such facts.[9] Hence, the requisite certification executed by the plaintiff's counsel will not suffice.[10]

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. 135038

2001-11-16

ROLANDO Y. TAN v. CA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

During his lifetime, Lorenzo Atega sold portions of his lot to different persons, among them Capistrano Leyson, who acquired a 305-square meter portion of Lot 436-A on March 3, 1979, and for which TCT No. RT-12332 was issued in his name.[19] Leyson, in turn, sold the land to respondent Francisco Aala.[20] Accordingly, TCT No. RT-12332 was cancelled by TCT No. 12368 in the name of Aala.

GR No. 136100

2000-07-24

FELIPE G. UY v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES

KAPUNAN, J.

the rule clearly unjustified.[15] In the case at bar, the apparent merits of the substantive aspects of the case should be deemed as a "special circumstance" or "compelling reason" for the reinstatement of the petition. That counsel for petitioner filed the "verification/certification" before receipt for the resolution initially denying the petition also mitigates the oversight. In any event, this Court has the power to suspend its own rules when, as in this case, the ends of justice would be served thereby.[16]

GR No. 121494

2000-06-08

SPS. VICTOR ONG AND GRACE TIU ONG v. CA

QUISUMBING, J.

With regard to the second issue, it will be recalled that the essence of forum-shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining favorable judgment.[19] It exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another.[20] The issuance of the writ of possession being a ministerial function, and summary in nature, it cannot be said to be a judgment on the merits, but simply an incident in the transfer of title. Hence, a separate case for annulment of mortgage and foreclosure sale cannot be barred by litis pendentia or res judicata.[21] Clearly, insofar as LRC Case No. R-4874 and Civil Case No. 64604 pending before different RTCs are concerned, there is no forum shopping.

	GR No. 195546 2012-03-14	GOODLAND COMPANY v. ASIA UNITED BANK VILLARAMA, JR., J.
There is forum shopping when the following elements are present: "(a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions[;] (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts[;] and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars[,] such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration; said requisites [are] also constitutive of the requisites for auter action pendant or lis pendens."[23] The essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment, through means other than by appeal or certiorari.[24]
	GR No. 168313 2010-10-06	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CA BRION, J.
We end this Decision by quoting our parting words in Melo v. Court of Appeals:[56]
	GR No. 183788 2010-04-05	KRIZIA KATRINA TY-DE ZUZUARREGUI v. JOSELITO C. VILLAROSA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Generally, subsequent compliance with the requirement of a certification of non-forum shopping does not excuse a party from failure to comply in the first instance. [31] A certification of the plaintiff's counsel will not suffice for the reason that it is the petitioner, and not the counsel, who is in the best position to know whether he actually filed or caused the filing of a petition. [32] A certification against forum shopping signed by counsel is a defective certification that is equivalent to non-compliance with the requirement and constitutes a valid cause for the dismissal of the petition. [33]
	GR NO. 165142 2007-12-10	EDUARDO L. RAYO v. METROPOLITAN BANK QUISUMBING, J.
With regard to forum-shopping; forum-shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. It exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another.[29] The issuance of the writ of possession being a ministerial function, and summary in nature, it cannot be said to be a judgment on the merits. It is only an incident in the transfer of title. Hence, a separate case for annulment of mortgage and foreclosure sale cannot be barred by litis pendentia or res judicata.[30] Clearly, insofar as LRC Case No. Q-13915(01) and Civil Case No. Q02-46514 are concerned, Metrobank is not guilty of forum-shopping.
	GR No. 174874 2007-10-04	GILBERT G. GUY v. ASIA UNITED BANK GARCIA, J.
The essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment,[21] through means other than by appeal or certiorari.[22] The rule thus does not apply to cases that arise from an initiatory or original action which has been elevated by way of appeal or certiorari to higher or appellate courts or authorities. This is so not only because the issues in the appellate courts necessarily differ from those in the lower court, but also because the appealed cases are a continuation of the original case and treated as only one case. For, it would be absurd to require, say in this instant petition, to make mention in the certification against non-forum shopping the CA case that is being sought to be reviewed in the petition at bench.
	GR NO. 135711 2007-08-02	MARIBETH CORDOVA v. CA AZCUNA, J.
In Melo v. Court of Appeals,[13] this Court declared that the requirement under Administrative Circular No. 04-94 for a certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory. The subsequent compliance with this requirement does not excuse a party's failure to comply therewith in the first instance. In those cases where the Court excused non-compliance with the certificate requirement, special circumstances or compelling reasons existed, which made the strict application of the circular clearly inequitable.[14] In this case, however, petitioner's action hardly justifies a deviation from the mandatory nature of the afore-quoted provision. Hence, petitioner's complaint was clearly dismissible on the ground of forum shopping.
	GR NO. 164459 2007-04-24	LIMITLESS POTENTIALS v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Forum shopping consists of filing multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment.[44] It exists where the elements of litis pendentia[45] are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another.[46] It may be resorted to by a party against whom an adverse judgment or order has been issued in one forum, in an attempt to seek a favorable opinion in another, other than by an appeal or a special civil action for certiorari.[47]
	GR NO. 163511 2006-06-30	LEE HIONG WEE v. DEE PING WEE GARCIA, J.
The essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same transaction and same essential facts and circumstances, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. 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 another,[12] implying that there is between the two cases identity of parties, rights asserted and reliefs sought.[13]
	GR NO. 163569 2005-12-09	PHILIPPINE RADIANT PRODUCTS v. METROPOLITAN BANK CALLEJO, SR., J.
SEC. 5. Certification against forum shopping. The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. It has been held that forum shopping is 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), or 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.[52] Thus, it has been held that there is forum shopping (1) when, as a result of an adverse decision in one forum, a party seeks a favorable decision (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another; or (2) if, after he has filed a petition before the Supreme Court, a party files a motion before the Court of Appeals, since in such a case, he deliberately splits appeals "in the hope that even on one case in which a particular allowable remedy sought for is dismissed, another case (offering a similar remedy) would still be open;" or (3) where a party attempts to obtain a preliminary injunction in another court after finality to obtain the same from the original court.[53] 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 another.[54]
	GR NO. 141973 2005-06-28	PHILIPPINE PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER CORPORATION v. CIR AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Generally, subsequent compliance with the requirement of affidavit of non-forum shopping does not excuse a party from failure to comply in the first instance.[26]
	GR NO. 152392 2005-05-26	EXPERTRAVEL v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
It is settled that the requirement to file a certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory[8] and that the failure to comply with this requirement cannot be excused. The certification is a peculiar and personal responsibility of the party, an assurance given to the court or other tribunal that there are no other pending cases involving basically the same parties, issues and causes of action. Hence, the certification must be accomplished by the party himself because he has actual knowledge of whether or not he has initiated similar actions or proceedings in different courts or tribunals. Even his counsel may be unaware of such facts.[9] Hence, the requisite certification executed by the plaintiff's counsel will not suffice.[10]
	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. 135038 2001-11-16	ROLANDO Y. TAN v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
During his lifetime, Lorenzo Atega sold portions of his lot to different persons, among them Capistrano Leyson, who acquired a 305-square meter portion of Lot 436-A on March 3, 1979, and for which TCT No. RT-12332 was issued in his name.[19] Leyson, in turn, sold the land to respondent Francisco Aala.[20] Accordingly, TCT No. RT-12332 was cancelled by TCT No. 12368 in the name of Aala.
	GR No. 136100 2000-07-24	FELIPE G. UY v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES KAPUNAN, J.
the rule clearly unjustified.[15] In the case at bar, the apparent merits of the substantive aspects of the case should be deemed as a "special circumstance" or "compelling reason" for the reinstatement of the petition. That counsel for petitioner filed the "verification/certification" before receipt for the resolution initially denying the petition also mitigates the oversight. In any event, this Court has the power to suspend its own rules when, as in this case, the ends of justice would be served thereby.[16]
	GR No. 121494 2000-06-08	SPS. VICTOR ONG AND GRACE TIU ONG v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
With regard to the second issue, it will be recalled that the essence of forum-shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining favorable judgment.[19] It exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another.[20] The issuance of the writ of possession being a ministerial function, and summary in nature, it cannot be said to be a judgment on the merits, but simply an incident in the transfer of title. Hence, a separate case for annulment of mortgage and foreclosure sale cannot be barred by litis pendentia or res judicata.[21] Clearly, insofar as LRC Case No. R-4874 and Civil Case No. 64604 pending before different RTCs are concerned, there is no forum shopping.

SPS. APOLINARIO MELO AND LILIA T. MELO v. CA