This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-02-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In this case, the first requisite, identity of parties or at least such as represent the same interest in both actions, is present. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the fact that there is no absolute identity of parties in both cases will not preclude the application of the rule of litis pendentia, since only substantial and not absolute identity of parties is required for litis pendentia to lie.[8] [Emphasis supplied] | |||||
|
2009-10-26 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Litis pendentia is a Latin term, which literally means "a pending suit" and is variously referred to in some decisions as lis pendens and auter action pendant.[6] As a ground for the dismissal of a civil action, it refers to the situation where two actions are pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, so that one of them becomes unnecessary and vexatious.[7] It is based on the policy against multiplicity of suits.[8] | |||||