Lawyerly

GR No. 167710

2009-06-05

PERALTA, J.

In Donato v. Court of Appeals[41] and Wee v. Galvez,[42] the Court noted that the petitioners were already in the United States; thus, the signing of the certification by their authorized representatives was deemed sufficient compliance with the Rules. In Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals,[43] the Court upheld substantial justice and ruled that the failure of the parties to sign the certification may be overlooked, as the parties' case was meritorious. In Torres v. Specialized Packaging and Development Corporation,[44] the Court also found, among other reasons, that the extreme difficulty to secure all the required signatures and the apparent merits of the substantive aspects of the case constitute compelling reasons for allowing the petition.

GR No. 162886

2008-08-11

HEIRS OF DECEASED SPS. VICENTE S. ARCILLA AND JOSEFA ASUNCION ARCILLA v. MA. LOURDES A. TEODORO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In Gabionza v. Court of Appeals,[18] this Court has held that Circular No. 28-91 was designed to serve as an instrument to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice and should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective or the goal of all rules of procedure - which is to achieve substantial justice as expeditiously as possible.[19] The same guideline still applies in interpreting what is now Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.[20]

GR No. 162772

2008-03-14

MERLIZA A. MUÑOZ v. PEOPLE

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

It is true that oftentimes the Court applied the rules with flexibility in order that the merits of a case will be fully adjudicated upon, not-withstanding its technical imperfections.[30] But what impels the Court to do so is neither a party's empty invocations of liberality nor its mechanical correction of the imperfections.[31] Rather, only a clear showing of prima facie merit of the petition will persuade the Court to take the extraordinary effort of setting aside its rules to give way to the imperfect petition.[32] After all, the rationale for liberality is to bring to light the merits of the petition, unobstructed by mere deficiencies in its form, such that if the petition has not an iota of merit in it, then there is nothing for the Court to bring to light at all.

GR No. 156078

2008-03-14

MARASIGAN v. MARASIGAN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Forum shopping "occurs when a party attempts to have his action tried in a particular court or jurisdiction where he feels he will receive the most favorable judgment or verdict." In our jurisdiction, it has taken the form of filing multiple petitions or complaints involving the same issues before two or more tribunals or agencies in the hope that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. There is also forum shopping when, because of an adverse decision in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another. 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. Thus, the rule proscribing forum shopping seeks to promote candor and transparency among lawyers and their clients in the pursuit of their cases before the courts to promote the orderly administration of justice, prevent undue inconvenience upon the other party, and save the precious time of the courts. It also aims to prevent the embarrassing situation of two or more courts or agencies rendering conflicting resolutions or decisions upon the same issue.[43]

GR No. 150107

2008-01-28

TOKIO MARINE MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY INCORPORATED v. JORGE VALDEZ

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

The rationale against forum shopping is that a party should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in two different courts as it 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.[12]

AC. NO. 7298

2007-06-25

FERNANDO MARTIN O. PENA v. ATTY. LOLITO G. APARICIO

TINGA, J.

Further, the rationale for the requirement of a certification against forum shopping is to apprise the Court of the pendency of another action or claim involving the same issues in another court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, and thereby precisely avoid the forum shopping situation. Filing multiple petitions or complaints constitutes abuse of court processes,[19] 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.[20] Furthermore, the rule proscribing forum shopping seeks to promote candor and transparency among lawyers and their clients in the pursuit of their cases before the courts to promote the orderly administration of justice, prevent undue inconvenience upon the other party, and save the precious time of the courts. It also aims to prevent the embarrassing situation of two or more courts or agencies rendering conflicting resolutions or decisions upon the same issue.[21]

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]

GR NO. 153785

2006-08-03

VERONIQUE T. HUIBONHOA

TINGA J.

[7] Wee v. Galvez, G.R. No. 147394, G.R. No. August 11, 2004, 436 SCRA 96, 108.

GR NO. 145004

2006-05-03

CITY OF CALOOCAN v. CA

TINGA, J.

Litigants are reminded that parties are not 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.[34] Litigants, no matter how noble their intentions for filing such suits, and no matter their zeal in pursuing their suits, are not excused from the coverage of the rule on forum-shopping.

GR NO. 147989

2006-02-20

ROLANDO CLAVECILLA v. TERESITO QUITAIN

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In Donato v. Court of Appeals[39] and Wee v. Galvez[40] the Court noted that the petitioners were already in the United States, thus the signing of the certification by their authorized representatives was deemed sufficient compliance with the rules. In Orbeta v. Sendiong[41] the Court found that the annulment of judgment filed by the parties was meritorious thus the certification signed by the daughter of petitioner who had a general power of attorney in her favor was deemed sufficient. In Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals[42] the Court also upheld substantial justice and ruled that the failure of the parties to sign the certification may be overlooked as the parties' case was meritorious.

	GR No. 167710 2009-06-05	PEOPLE v. JOVEN DE GRANO PERALTA, J.
In Donato v. Court of Appeals[41] and Wee v. Galvez,[42] the Court noted that the petitioners were already in the United States; thus, the signing of the certification by their authorized representatives was deemed sufficient compliance with the Rules. In Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals,[43] the Court upheld substantial justice and ruled that the failure of the parties to sign the certification may be overlooked, as the parties' case was meritorious. In Torres v. Specialized Packaging and Development Corporation,[44] the Court also found, among other reasons, that the extreme difficulty to secure all the required signatures and the apparent merits of the substantive aspects of the case constitute compelling reasons for allowing the petition.
	GR No. 162886 2008-08-11	HEIRS OF DECEASED SPS. VICENTE S. ARCILLA AND JOSEFA ASUNCION ARCILLA v. MA. LOURDES A. TEODORO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Gabionza v. Court of Appeals,[18] this Court has held that Circular No. 28-91 was designed to serve as an instrument to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice and should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective or the goal of all rules of procedure - which is to achieve substantial justice as expeditiously as possible.[19] The same guideline still applies in interpreting what is now Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.[20]
	GR No. 162772 2008-03-14	MERLIZA A. MUÑOZ v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It is true that oftentimes the Court applied the rules with flexibility in order that the merits of a case will be fully adjudicated upon, not-withstanding its technical imperfections.[30] But what impels the Court to do so is neither a party's empty invocations of liberality nor its mechanical correction of the imperfections.[31] Rather, only a clear showing of prima facie merit of the petition will persuade the Court to take the extraordinary effort of setting aside its rules to give way to the imperfect petition.[32] After all, the rationale for liberality is to bring to light the merits of the petition, unobstructed by mere deficiencies in its form, such that if the petition has not an iota of merit in it, then there is nothing for the Court to bring to light at all.
	GR No. 156078 2008-03-14	MARASIGAN v. MARASIGAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Forum shopping "occurs when a party attempts to have his action tried in a particular court or jurisdiction where he feels he will receive the most favorable judgment or verdict." In our jurisdiction, it has taken the form of filing multiple petitions or complaints involving the same issues before two or more tribunals or agencies in the hope that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. There is also forum shopping when, because of an adverse decision in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another. 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. Thus, the rule proscribing forum shopping seeks to promote candor and transparency among lawyers and their clients in the pursuit of their cases before the courts to promote the orderly administration of justice, prevent undue inconvenience upon the other party, and save the precious time of the courts. It also aims to prevent the embarrassing situation of two or more courts or agencies rendering conflicting resolutions or decisions upon the same issue.[43]
	GR No. 150107 2008-01-28	TOKIO MARINE MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY INCORPORATED v. JORGE VALDEZ SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The rationale against forum shopping is that a party should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in two different courts as it 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.[12]
	AC. NO. 7298 2007-06-25	FERNANDO MARTIN O. PENA v. ATTY. LOLITO G. APARICIO TINGA, J.
Further, the rationale for the requirement of a certification against forum shopping is to apprise the Court of the pendency of another action or claim involving the same issues in another court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, and thereby precisely avoid the forum shopping situation. Filing multiple petitions or complaints constitutes abuse of court processes,[19] 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.[20] Furthermore, the rule proscribing forum shopping seeks to promote candor and transparency among lawyers and their clients in the pursuit of their cases before the courts to promote the orderly administration of justice, prevent undue inconvenience upon the other party, and save the precious time of the courts. It also aims to prevent the embarrassing situation of two or more courts or agencies rendering conflicting resolutions or decisions upon the same issue.[21]
	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]
	GR NO. 153785 2006-08-03	VERONIQUE T. HUIBONHOA TINGA J.
[7] Wee v. Galvez, G.R. No. 147394, G.R. No. August 11, 2004, 436 SCRA 96, 108.
	GR NO. 145004 2006-05-03	CITY OF CALOOCAN v. CA TINGA, J.
Litigants are reminded that parties are not 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.[34] Litigants, no matter how noble their intentions for filing such suits, and no matter their zeal in pursuing their suits, are not excused from the coverage of the rule on forum-shopping.
	GR NO. 147989 2006-02-20	ROLANDO CLAVECILLA v. TERESITO QUITAIN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Donato v. Court of Appeals[39] and Wee v. Galvez[40] the Court noted that the petitioners were already in the United States, thus the signing of the certification by their authorized representatives was deemed sufficient compliance with the rules. In Orbeta v. Sendiong[41] the Court found that the annulment of judgment filed by the parties was meritorious thus the certification signed by the daughter of petitioner who had a general power of attorney in her favor was deemed sufficient. In Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals[42] the Court also upheld substantial justice and ruled that the failure of the parties to sign the certification may be overlooked as the parties' case was meritorious.

SPS. MANUEL AND ROSEMARIE WEE v. ROSARIO D. GALVEZ