Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RAMON M. VELUZ v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 174971 2008-10-15	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. AMS FARMING CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases, such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other case.[27] While it may be true that CA-G.R. SP No. 77520 and CA-G.R. SP No. 76724 were both appeals of the 11 March 2003 Decision of the RTC in Special Agrarian Case No. 61-2000, the former was interposed by the LBP while the latter was filed by the DAR. Obviously, the DAR and the LBP are not the same parties. Neither can it be easily presumed that they represent the same interests in their appeals. It should be remembered that the LBP, in land valuation and just compensation cases, exercises authority and discretion separate and independent of the DAR, and may even disagree with and take a position contrary to that of the DAR. That the LBP and the DAR, in this instance, both assert in their respective appeal that AMS has no right to just compensation, can be said to be merely coincidental and may not be true at all times; hence, it does not merge their personalities and their interests, as to compel them to appeal together.
	GR NO. 137694 2005-01-17	DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. LA CAMPANA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the case of Veluz v. Court of Appeals,[35] we held:. . . Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or when a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. For litis pendentia to exist, the following requisites must be present:
	GR No. 154599 2004-01-21	LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY NATIONAL v. CITY MAYOR OF MANILA DAVIDE JR., CJ.
We hesitate to rule that the petitioner and the intervenor are guilty of forum-shopping. Forum-shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or when a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. For litis pendentia to exist, the following requisites must be present: (1) identity of parties, or at least such parties as are representing the same interests in both actions; (2) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts; and (3) identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases, such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other case.[20]