This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2009-10-02 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Private respondents allege that petitioner admits that he previously filed a complaint[92] with respondent Office of the Ombudsman against respondents Ronaldo B. Zamora, Manual B. Zamora, Jr., and Luis J. L. Virata (OMB Case No. 0-00-1758); however, he did not attach a copy of said complaint to his petition filed before this Court. Said complaint was dismissed by the Ombudsman. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration in said case was still pending as of the time of the filing of the Comment. Private respondents conclude that petitioner had filed multiple suits involving the very same issues against respondents, and he merely rehashed the very same charges and allegations in the second complaint. This, according to private respondents, was forum shopping, defined by this Court in Gatmaytan v. Court of Appeals,[93] 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." | |||||
|
2008-01-28 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Gatmaytan v. Court of Appeals[10] describes forum shopping as the act of a litigant who "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…to increase his chances of obtaining a favorable decision if not in one court, then in another." Differently put, it 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."[11] | |||||
|
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] | |||||
|
2005-11-29 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The principles of litis pendentia, res judicata and forum-shopping are all based on the policy against multiplicity of suits. A party is guilty of forum-shopping where he 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.[40] The test to determine whether a party violated the rule against forum-shopping is where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another.[41] | |||||
|
2005-09-23 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| One other vital point is the issue of forum-shopping against petitioners. Forum-shopping consists of filing multiple suits in different courts, either simultaneously or successively, involving the same parties, to ask the courts to rule on the same or related causes and/or to grant the same or substantially same reliefs,[51] on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.[52] Obviously, the parties in the instant case, as well as in the appealed case before the CA, are the same. Both cases deal with the existence and validity of the alleged will of the decedent, with petitioners anchoring their cause on the state of intestacy. In the probate proceedings, petitioners' position has always been that the decedent left no will and if she did, the will does not comply with the requisites of a valid will. Indeed, that position is the bedrock of their present petition. Of course, respondent maintains the contrary stance. On the other hand, in the petition for letters of administration, petitioner Flores prayed for her appointment as administratrix of the estate on the theory that the decedent died intestate. The petition was dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, and it is this order of dismissal which is the subject of review in CA-G.R. No. 74924. Clearly, therefore, there is forum-shopping. | |||||
|
2005-06-22 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Now to the charge that petitioner is guilty of forum-shopping. Forum-shopping is manifest whenever a party "repetitively avail[s] 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."[83] It has also been defined as "an act of a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum of seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion in another forum, other than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari, or the institution of 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."[84] Considered a pernicious evil, it adversely affects the efficient administration of justice since it clogs the court dockets, unduly burdens the financial and human resources of the judiciary, and trifles with and mocks judicial processes.[85] Willful and deliberate forum-shopping is a ground for summary dismissal of the complaint or initiatory pleading with prejudice and constitutes direct contempt of court, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions, which may both be resolved and imposed in the same case where the forum-shopping is found.[86] | |||||
|
2004-07-26 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Forum-shopping consists of filing multiple suits in different courts, either simultaneously or successively, involving the same parties, to ask the courts to rule on the same or related causes and/or to grant the same or substantially same reliefs,[24] on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.[25] | |||||