This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-08-03 |
PERALTA, 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. It exists when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion in another, or when he institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause to increase the chances of obtaining a favorable decision. An important factor in determining its existence is the vexation caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of similar cases to claim substantially the same reliefs. 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. Thus, the following requisites should concur:[23] | |||||
|
2009-10-09 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Petitioner's allegations of forum shopping must fail as well. 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.[23] This is not the case with respect to the ejectment suit vis-à-vis the action for damages. | |||||
|
2009-03-20 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| With respect to the second and third requisites, hornbook is the rule that identity of causes of action does not mean absolute identity;[27] otherwise, a party could easily escape the operation of res judicata by changing the form of the action or the relief sought.[28] The test to determine whether the causes of action are identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence will sustain both actions, or whether there is an identity in the facts essential to the maintenance of the two actions.[29] If the same facts or evidence would sustain both, the two actions are considered the same, and a judgment in the first case is a bar to the subsequent action.[30] Hence, a party cannot, by varying the form of action or adopting a different method of presenting his case, escape the operation of the principle that one and the same cause of action shall not be twice litigated between the same parties or their privies.[31] | |||||
|
2007-02-12 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The court should also exercise a sound discretion in determining whether a lawyer should be disbarred or merely suspended. It should bear in mind that admission to the Bar is obtained only after years of labor and study and the office acquired often becomes the source of great honor and emolument to its possessor. To most members of the legal profession, it is a means of support for themselves and their families. To deprive one of such an office is often to decree poverty to the lawyer and destitution to his family.[47] Disbarment, therefore, should never be decreed where any lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension, would accomplish the end desired.[48] | |||||