Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REV. LUIS AO-AS v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 181293 2015-02-23	ANA THERESIA “RISA” IVEROS-BARAQUEL v. TOLL REGULATORY BOARD SERENO, C.J.
The elements of forum shopping are as follows: a) identity of parties or at least such parties that represent the same interests in both actions; b) identity of rights asserted and the relief prayed for, the relief founded on the same facts; and c) identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in one action will amount to res judicata in the other.[95]
	GR No. 159691 2014-02-17	HEIRS OF MARCELO SOTTO v. MATILDE S. PALICTE BERSAMIN, J.
lawyer.[20] Forum shopping can be committed in either of three ways, namely: (1) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet (litis pendentia); (2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved (res judicata); or (3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action but with different prayers (splitting of causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res judicata). If the forum shopping is not willful and deliberate, the subsequent cases shall be dismissed without prejudice on one of the two grounds mentioned above. But if the forum shopping is willful and deliberate, both (or all, if there are more than two) actions shall be dismissed with prejudice.[21] In view of the foregoing, Atty. Mahinay was guilty of forum shopping. Under Revised Circular No. 28-91,[22] any willful and deliberate forum shopping by any party and his counsel through the filing of multiple petitions or complaints to ensure favorable
	GR No. 190814 2013-10-09	MICHELLE LANA BROWN-ARANETA v. JUAN IGNACIO ARANETA VELASCO JR., J.
Clearly, the Petition for Custody and the Petition for Protection Order have the same parties who represent the same interests. The fact that Ava and Ara, who are parties in the Petition for Protection Order, are not impleaded in the Petition for Custody is of no moment because they are precisely the very subjects of the Petition for Custody and their respective rights are represented by their mother, Michelle. In a long line of cases on forum shopping, the Court has held that absolute identity of the parties is not required, it being enough that there is substantial identity of the parties[40] or at least such parties represent the same interests in both actions. It does not matter, as here, that in the Petition for Custody, Juan Ignacio is the petitioner and Michelle is the respondent while in the Petition for Protection Order, their roles are reversed. That a party is the petitioner in one case and at the same time, the respondent in the other case does not, without more, remove the said cases from the ambit of the rules on forum shopping. So did the Court hold, for example in First Philippine International Bank v. Court of Appeals, that forum shopping exists even in cases like this where petitioners or plaintiffs in one case were impleaded as respondents or defendants in another.[41] Moreover, this Court has constantly held that the fact that the positions of the parties are reversed, i.e., the plaintiffs in the first case are the defendants in the second case or vice versa, does not negate the identity of parties for purposes of determining whether the case is dismissible on the ground of litis pendentia.[42]
	GR No. 159691 2013-06-13	HEIRS OF MARCELO SOTTO v. MATILDE S. PALICTE BERSAMIN, J.
Under the circumstances, Atty. Mahinay appears to have engaged in the prejudicial practice of forum shopping as much as any of his clients had been. If he was guilty, the Court would not tolerate it, and would sanction him. In this regard, forum shopping, according to Ao-as v. Court of Appeals,[21] may be committed as follows:As the present jurisprudence now stands, forum shopping can be committed in three ways: (1) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet (litis pendentia); (2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved (res judicata); and (3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action but with different prayers (splitting of causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res judicata). If the forum shopping is not considered willful and deliberate, the subsequent cases shall be dismissed without prejudice on one of the two grounds mentioned above. However, if the forum shopping is willful and deliberate, both (or all, if there are more than two) actions shall be dismissed with prejudice.
	GR No. 175338 2008-04-29	AIR MATERIEL WING SAVINGS v. COL. LUVIN S. MANAY YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
As the present jurisprudence now stands, forum shopping can be committed in three ways: (1) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet (litis pendentia); (2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved (res judicata); and (3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action but with different prayers (splitting of causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res judicata). If the forum shopping is not considered willful and deliberate, the subsequent cases shall be dismissed without prejudice on one of the two grounds mentioned above. However, if the forum shopping is willful and deliberate, both (or all, if there are more than two) actions shall be dismissed with prejudice.[18] (Italics copied) Forum shopping is an act of malpractice, as the litigants trifle with the courts and abuse their processes. It is improper conduct and degrades the administration of justice. If the act of the party or its counsel clearly constitutes willful and deliberate forum-shopping, the same shall constitute direct contempt, and a cause for administrative sanctions, as well as a ground for the summary dismissal of the case with prejudice.[19]
	GR NO. 169604 2007-03-06	NELSON P. COLLANTES v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Forum shopping can be committed in three ways: (1) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal is litis pendentia); (2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved (where the ground for dismissal is res judicata); and (3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action but with different prayers (splitting of causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res judicata).[13] If the forum shopping is not considered willful and deliberate, the subsequent cases shall be dismissed without prejudice on one of the two grounds mentioned above. However, if the forum shopping is willful and deliberate, both (or all, if there are more than two) actions shall be dismissed with prejudice.[14]