This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-06-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| III. On the matter of forum shopping, we find the claim unsubstantiated. The NHMFC has not explained why there is forum shopping.[49] It failed to show the elements of forum shopping, i.e., (1) identity of parties in the HLRB cases and this case; (2) identity of rights asserted or relief prayed for; and (3) identity of the two preceding particulars so that the judgment in the HLRB cases will be res judicata in this case.[50] In any event, the decision in the HLRB cases, as affirmed with modification by the HLURB Board of Commissioners,[51] ordered Shelter to complete the subdivision roads, sidewalks, water, electrical and drainage systems. Thus, there is no forum shopping since the petition for declaratory relief and prohibition filed by petitioners against respondents is entirely different from the HLRB cases. Involved were different parties, rights asserted and reliefs sought. Obviously, the NHMFC invokes a ruling of the RTC and Court of Appeals that petitioners committed forum shopping, when no such ruling exists. | |||||
|
2008-01-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| There is forum shopping when the following elements concur: (1) identity of the parties or, at least, of the parties who represent the same interest in both actions; (2) identity of the rights asserted and relief prayed for, as the latter is founded on the same set of facts; and (3) identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in the other action will amount to res judicata in the action under consideration or will constitute litis pendentia.[11] | |||||