Lawyerly

GR Nos. 212140-41

2015-01-21

SENATOR JINGGOY EJERCITO ESTRADA v. BERSAMIN

CARPIO, J.

On 20 March 2014, Sen. Estrada filed his Request to be Furnished with Copies of Counter-Affidavits of the Other Respondents, Affidavits of New Witnesses and Other Filings (Request) in OMB-C-C-13-0313. In his Request, Sen. Estrada asked for copies of the following documents: (a) Affidavit of [co-respondent] Ruby Tuason (Tuason); (b) Affidavit of [co-respondent] Dennis L. Cunanan (Cunanan); (c) Counter-Affidavit of [co-respondent] Gondelina G. Amata (Amata); (d) Counter-Affidavit of [co-respondent] Mario L. Relampagos (Relampagos); (e) Consolidated Reply of complainant NBI, if one had been filed; and (f) Affidavits/Counter-Affidavits/Pleadings/Filings filed by all the other respondents and/or additional witnesses for the Complainants.[6] Sen. Estrada's request was made "[p]ursuant to the right of a respondent 'to examine the evidence submitted by the complainant which he may not have been furnished' (Section 3[b], Rule 112 of the Rules of Court) and to 'have access to the evidence on record' (Section 4[c], Rule II of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman)."[7]

GR No. 175900

2013-06-10

KAPISANANG PANGKAUNLARAN NG KABABAIHANG POTRERO v. REMEDIOS BARRENO

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Forum shopping exists "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."[21] What is truly important to consider in determining whether it exists or not is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related causes and/or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by different fora upon the same issues.[22]

GR No. 186730

2012-06-13

JESSE YAP v. CA

REYES, J.

Forum shopping is the institution of two or more actions or proceedings involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. Forum shopping may be resorted to by any party against whom an adverse judgment or order has been issued in one forum, in an attempt to seek a favorable opinion in another, other than by appeal or a special civil action for certiorari. Forum shopping trifles with the courts, abuses their processes, degrades the administration of justice and congest court dockets.[12] What is critical is the vexation brought upon the courts and the litigants by a party who asks different courts to rule on the same or related causes and grant the same or substantially the same reliefs and in the process creates the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issues.[13] Willful and deliberate violation of the rule against forum shopping is a ground for summary dismissal of the case; it may also constitute direct contempt.[14]

GR No. 195546

2012-03-14

GOODLAND COMPANY v. ASIA UNITED BANK

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

The foregoing scenario is precisely what the prohibition on forum shopping seeks to avoid. What is truly important to consider in determining whether forum shopping exists or not is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related causes and/or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issues.[34]

GR No. 173931

2009-04-02

ALICIA D. TAGARO v. ESTER A. GARCIA

TINGA, J.

Indeed, forum shopping exists when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another, or when he institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the gamble that one or the other forum would make a favorable disposition.[41] Not only is it contumacious, it is also an act of malpractice that is proscribed and condemned because it tends to trifle with the courts and abuse existing legal processes.[42] Thus, as a measure of punishment, such act invariably merits the summary dismissal of both actions[43] If for this basic and consequential consideration alone, the Court should dismiss the present petition as it did before in G.R. No. 158568.

GR No. 173931

2009-04-02

ALICIA D. TAGARO v. ESTER A. GARCIA

TINGA, J.

Indeed, forum shopping exists when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another, or when he institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the gamble that one or the other forum would make a favorable disposition.[41] Not only is it contumacious, it is also an act of malpractice that is proscribed and condemned because it tends to trifle with the courts and abuse existing legal processes.[42] Thus, as a measure of punishment, such act invariably merits the summary dismissal of both actions[43] If for this basic and consequential consideration alone, the Court should dismiss the present petition as it did before in G.R. No. 158568.

GR No. 172449

2008-08-20

LAZARO MADARA v. NORMA C. PERELLO

BRION, J.

To determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping, the most important factor to ask is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. Otherwise stated, the test is whether the two (or more) pending cases have identity of parties, of rights or causes of action, and of the reliefs sought.[34] Willful and deliberate violation of the rule against it is a ground for summary dismissal of the case; it may also constitute direct contempt."[35]

GR NO. 153481

2007-08-10

HARRY M. TANINGCO v. LILIA M. TANINGCO

GARCIA, J.

What is truly important to consider in determining whether forum shopping exists or not is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related causes and/or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issues.[4]

GR NO. 156211

2007-07-31

MEGA-LAND RESOURCES v. C-E CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION

TINGA, 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.[29] 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, on the gamble that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.[30] There certainly is all the opportunity to accomplish the wrong intended by forum-shopping through the filing of two petitions for review with a collegiate court such as the Court of Appeals, as each petition would be docketed separately and assigned to a division of that court, thus allowing two different divisions to act independently as each considers and treats the petition. Thus, no petition for review on certiorari may be filed in the Court of Appeals if there is already a similar petition already filed or pending with that same court.[31]

GR NO. 168557

2007-02-16

FELS ENERGY v. PROVINCE OF BATANGAS

CALLEJO, SR., J.

On the issue of forum shopping, we rule for the Provincial Assessor. Forum shopping exists when, as a result of an adverse judgment in one forum, a party seeks another and possibly favorable judgment in another forum other than by appeal or special civil action or certiorari. There is also forum shopping when a party institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the gamble that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.[44]

GR NO. 125509

2007-01-31

PUBLIC INTEREST CENTER v. VICENTE Q. ROXAS

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Forum shopping exists when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another, or when he institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the gamble that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.[27]

GR NO. 169341

2006-11-22

CITY OF CEBU v. VICENTE B. DEL ROSARIO

CALLEJO, SR.,J.

Forum shopping exists when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari), in another, or when he institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the gamble that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.[62] The test for determining whether a party violates the rule against forum shopping is where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the action under consideration or where the elements of litis pendentia are present.[63] What is truly important to consider in determining whether forum shopping exists or not is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related causes or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issues.[64]

	GR Nos. 212140-41 2015-01-21	SENATOR JINGGOY EJERCITO ESTRADA v. BERSAMIN CARPIO, J.
On 20 March 2014, Sen. Estrada filed his Request to be Furnished with Copies of Counter-Affidavits of the Other Respondents, Affidavits of New Witnesses and Other Filings (Request) in OMB-C-C-13-0313. In his Request, Sen. Estrada asked for copies of the following documents: (a) Affidavit of [co-respondent] Ruby Tuason (Tuason); (b) Affidavit of [co-respondent] Dennis L. Cunanan (Cunanan); (c) Counter-Affidavit of [co-respondent] Gondelina G. Amata (Amata); (d) Counter-Affidavit of [co-respondent] Mario L. Relampagos (Relampagos); (e) Consolidated Reply of complainant NBI, if one had been filed; and (f) Affidavits/Counter-Affidavits/Pleadings/Filings filed by all the other respondents and/or additional witnesses for the Complainants.[6] Sen. Estrada's request was made "[p]ursuant to the right of a respondent 'to examine the evidence submitted by the complainant which he may not have been furnished' (Section 3[b], Rule 112 of the Rules of Court) and to 'have access to the evidence on record' (Section 4[c], Rule II of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman)."[7]
	GR No. 175900 2013-06-10	KAPISANANG PANGKAUNLARAN NG KABABAIHANG POTRERO v. REMEDIOS BARRENO PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Forum shopping exists "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."[21] What is truly important to consider in determining whether it exists or not is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related causes and/or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by different fora upon the same issues.[22]
	GR No. 186730 2012-06-13	JESSE YAP v. CA REYES, J.
Forum shopping is the institution of two or more actions or proceedings involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. Forum shopping may be resorted to by any party against whom an adverse judgment or order has been issued in one forum, in an attempt to seek a favorable opinion in another, other than by appeal or a special civil action for certiorari. Forum shopping trifles with the courts, abuses their processes, degrades the administration of justice and congest court dockets.[12] What is critical is the vexation brought upon the courts and the litigants by a party who asks different courts to rule on the same or related causes and grant the same or substantially the same reliefs and in the process creates the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issues.[13] Willful and deliberate violation of the rule against forum shopping is a ground for summary dismissal of the case; it may also constitute direct contempt.[14]
	GR No. 195546 2012-03-14	GOODLAND COMPANY v. ASIA UNITED BANK VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The foregoing scenario is precisely what the prohibition on forum shopping seeks to avoid. What is truly important to consider in determining whether forum shopping exists or not is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related causes and/or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issues.[34]
	GR No. 173931 2009-04-02	ALICIA D. TAGARO v. ESTER A. GARCIA TINGA, J.
Indeed, forum shopping exists when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another, or when he institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the gamble that one or the other forum would make a favorable disposition.[41] Not only is it contumacious, it is also an act of malpractice that is proscribed and condemned because it tends to trifle with the courts and abuse existing legal processes.[42] Thus, as a measure of punishment, such act invariably merits the summary dismissal of both actions[43] If for this basic and consequential consideration alone, the Court should dismiss the present petition as it did before in G.R. No. 158568.
	GR No. 173931 2009-04-02	ALICIA D. TAGARO v. ESTER A. GARCIA TINGA, J.
Indeed, forum shopping exists when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another, or when he institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the gamble that one or the other forum would make a favorable disposition.[41] Not only is it contumacious, it is also an act of malpractice that is proscribed and condemned because it tends to trifle with the courts and abuse existing legal processes.[42] Thus, as a measure of punishment, such act invariably merits the summary dismissal of both actions[43] If for this basic and consequential consideration alone, the Court should dismiss the present petition as it did before in G.R. No. 158568.
	GR No. 172449 2008-08-20	LAZARO MADARA v. NORMA C. PERELLO BRION, J.
To determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping, the most important factor to ask is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. Otherwise stated, the test is whether the two (or more) pending cases have identity of parties, of rights or causes of action, and of the reliefs sought.[34] Willful and deliberate violation of the rule against it is a ground for summary dismissal of the case; it may also constitute direct contempt."[35]
	GR NO. 153481 2007-08-10	HARRY M. TANINGCO v. LILIA M. TANINGCO GARCIA, J.
What is truly important to consider in determining whether forum shopping exists or not is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related causes and/or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issues.[4]
	GR NO. 156211 2007-07-31	MEGA-LAND RESOURCES v. C-E CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION TINGA, 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.[29] 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, on the gamble that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.[30] There certainly is all the opportunity to accomplish the wrong intended by forum-shopping through the filing of two petitions for review with a collegiate court such as the Court of Appeals, as each petition would be docketed separately and assigned to a division of that court, thus allowing two different divisions to act independently as each considers and treats the petition. Thus, no petition for review on certiorari may be filed in the Court of Appeals if there is already a similar petition already filed or pending with that same court.[31]
	GR NO. 168557 2007-02-16	FELS ENERGY v. PROVINCE OF BATANGAS CALLEJO, SR., J.
On the issue of forum shopping, we rule for the Provincial Assessor. Forum shopping exists when, as a result of an adverse judgment in one forum, a party seeks another and possibly favorable judgment in another forum other than by appeal or special civil action or certiorari. There is also forum shopping when a party institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the gamble that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.[44]
	GR NO. 125509 2007-01-31	PUBLIC INTEREST CENTER v. VICENTE Q. ROXAS CARPIO MORALES, J.
Forum shopping exists when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another, or when he institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the gamble that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.[27]
	GR NO. 169341 2006-11-22	CITY OF CEBU v. VICENTE B. DEL ROSARIO CALLEJO, SR.,J.
Forum shopping exists when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari), in another, or when he institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the gamble that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.[62] The test for determining whether a party violates the rule against forum shopping is where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the action under consideration or where the elements of litis pendentia are present.[63] What is truly important to consider in determining whether forum shopping exists or not is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related causes or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issues.[64]

MUNICIPALITY OF TAGUIG v. CA