Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GUARANTEED HOTELS v. JOSEFINA S. BALTAO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 190814 2013-10-09	MICHELLE LANA BROWN-ARANETA v. JUAN IGNACIO ARANETA VELASCO JR., J.
The evil sought to be avoided by the rule against forum shopping is the rendition by two competent tribunals of two separate and contradictory decisions. Unscrupulous party litigants, taking advantage of a variety of competent tribunals, may repeatedly try their luck in several different fora until a favorable result is reached. To avoid the resultant confusion, the Court adheres to the rules against forum shopping, and a breach of these rules results in the dismissal of the case.[39]
	GR No. 159323 2008-07-31	COCA-COLA BOTTLERS v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION REYES, R.T., J.
There is forum shopping when one party repetitively avails 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.[54] In short, 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.[55]
	GR No. 176466 2008-06-17	TEGIMENTA CHEMICAL PHILS. v. ROLAN E. BUENSALIDA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Thus, respondent was not guilty of forum shopping when he filed the NCR case despite the pendency of the Davao case. Forum shopping consists of filing multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment.[26] There is forum shopping where the elements of litis pendentia are present, namely: (a) there is identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interest in both actions; (b) there is identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same set of facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful would amount to res judicata in the other.[27] While the first requisite concededly exists in the instant case, the second and third requisites do not.
	GR NO. 165849 2007-12-10	GILBERT G. GUY v. CA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and hearing. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions. Forum shopping is condemned because it unnecessarily burdens our courts with heavy caseloads, unduly taxes the manpower and financial resources of the judiciary and trifles with and mocks judicial processes, thereby affecting the efficient administration of justice.[7] The primary evil sought to be proscribed by the prohibition against forum shopping is, however, the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different courts and/or administrative agencies upon the same issues.[8]
	GR No. 164966 2007-06-08	ROLANDO TAN v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In effect, by taking these two distinct courses of actions, petitioners have pursued the same or related causes, prayed for the same or substantially the same reliefs, and, in the process, have created the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issues which is precisely the evil that the rule on forum-shopping seeks to prevent.[26] Doubtless, they have engaged in a form of forum-shopping. Their attempt to trifle with the courts and abuse their processes must not be countenanced. As a consequence of petitioners' violation of the rule against forum-shopping and in order to preserve the laudable objectives of the rule against forum-shopping, the dismissal of the petition for prohibition should be upheld.[27]
	GR NO. 157745 2006-09-26	GENALYN D. YOUNG v. SPS. MANUEL SY AND VICTORIA SY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Forum shopping consists of filing multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment.[26]
	GR NO. 157911 2006-09-19	SPS. MANUEL A. AGUILAR AND YOLANDA C. AGUILAR v. MANILA BANKING CORPORATION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Be it remembered that the grave evil sought to be avoided by the rules against forum shopping is the rendition by two competent tribunals of two separate, and contradictory decisions. Unscrupulous party- litigants, taking advantage of a variety of competent tribunals, may repeatedly try their luck in several different fora until a favorable result is reached. This would make a complete mockery of the judicial system.[69]