Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RICARDO A. FORONDA v. ATTY. ARNOLD V. GUERRERO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 159691 2014-02-17	HEIRS OF MARCELO SOTTO v. MATILDE S. PALICTE BERSAMIN, J.
same issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court."[1] Forum shopping is an act of malpractice that is prohibited and condemned because it trifles with the courts and abuses their processes. It degrades the administration of justice and adds to the already congested court dockets.[2] An important factor in determining its existence is the vexation caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of similar cases to claim substantially the same reliefs.[3] The test to determine the existence of forum shopping is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case amounts to res judicata in the other. Thus, there is forum shopping when the following elements are present,
	AC. No. 3731 2007-09-07	MANUEL S. SEBASTIAN v. ATTY. EMILY A. BAJAR CARPIO, J.
Respondent abused her right of recourse to the courts. Respondent, acting as Tanlioco's counsel, filed cases for Specific Performance and Maintenance of Possession despite the finality of the decision in the Ejectment case which involves the same issues. The Court held that "an important factor in determining the existence of forum-shopping is the vexation caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of similar cases to claim substantially the same reliefs.[72] Indeed, "while a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, it should not be at the expense of truth and administration of justice."[73]
	AC. NO. 6323 2007-04-13	PABLO R. OLIVARES v. ATTY. ARSENIO C. VILLALON CORONA, J.
A lawyer's fidelity to his client must not be pursued at the expense of truth and justice.[28] Lawyers have the duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Filing multiple actions constitutes an abuse of the Court's processes. It constitutes improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade justice. Those who file multiple or repetitive actions subject themselves to disciplinary action for incompetence or willful violation of their duties as attorneys to act with all good fidelity to the courts, and to maintain only such actions that appear to be just and consistent with truth and honor.[29]
	GR NO. 168557 2007-02-16	FELS ENERGY v. PROVINCE OF BATANGAS CALLEJO, SR., J.
It must be stressed that an important factor in determining the existence of forum shopping is the vexation caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of similar cases to claim substantially the same reliefs.[45] The rationale against forum shopping is that a party should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in two different fora. Filing multiple petitions or complaints constitutes abuse of court processes, which tends to degrade the administration of justice, wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial procedure, and adds to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts.[46]
	AC. NO. 7056 2006-09-13	PLUS BUILDERS v. ATTY. ANASTACIO E. REVILLA PANGANIBAN, CJ
In support of the cause of their clients, lawyers have the duty to present every remedy or defense within the authority of the law. This obligation, however, must never be at the expense of truth and justice,[18] as explained in Choa v. Chiongson:[19]
	AC. NO. 5653 2006-02-27	JOHN SIY LIM v. ATTY. CARMELITO A. MONTANO CALLEJO, SR., J.
The essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. 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 to increase the chances of obtaining a favorable decision. An important factor in determining its existence is the vexation caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of similar cases to claim substantially the same reliefs.[17] 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 another.[18] Thus, the following requisites should concur:(a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions, (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts, and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration. x x x[19]
	AC. No. 5908 2004-10-25	ANTONIO B. RAMOS v. ATTY. ALEJANDRO JOSE C. PALLUGNA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Indeed, while a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, it should not be at the expense of truth and the administration of justice.[13] Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer has the duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice,[14] and is enjoined from unduly delaying a case by impeding execution of a judgment or by misusing court processes.[15] While lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest of their clients and zeal in the defense of their client's right, they should not forget that they are, first and foremost, officers of the court, bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.[16] Their office does not permit violation of the law or any manner of fraud or chicanery.[17] A lawyer's responsibility to protect and advance the interests of his client does not warrant a course of action propelled by ill motives and malicious intentions against the other party.[18] Mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession, they must conduct themselves honorably and fairly.[19] They advance the honor of their profession and the best interests of their clients when they render service or give advice that meets the strictest principles of moral law.[20]