This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-04-02 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The trial court, however, dismissed the RTC petition in an Order[29] dated 17 July 2001 based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Petitioner then filed a petition for review of the trial court's order of dismissal with the Court of Appeals. The petition, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 66446,[30] pointed out that it was error for the trial court to dismiss the petition inasmuch as the issue involved was one purely of law and that the same concerned the patently unlawful acts of the respondents therein which thus removed the case from the rule of exhaustion. While this petition was pending before the Court of Appeals, however, petitioner on 22 August 2001, filed before the CSC a pleading she denominated as "Administrative Appeal" (the second CSC Appeal) assailing the same 7 June 2001 Memorandum Order and reiterating the same basic argument raised against the said memorandum order in her Urgent Motion for Preliminary Injunction previously filed with the trial court--i.e., that the same did not have any legal basis. In its 27 February 2003 Decision,[31] the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on the finding that petitioner had engaged in forum-shopping by principally questioning the validity of the memorandum order, first, before the trial court and then later, before the CSC. On appeal, this Court upheld the Court of Appeals in its 17 November 2004 Decision in G.R. No. 158568.[32] | |||||
|
2009-04-02 |
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. | |||||
|
2008-06-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, 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 after 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. What is pivotal to consider in determining whether forum shopping exists or not is the vexation caused to courts and the parties-litigants by a party who asks appellate courts and/or administrative entities to rule on the same or related causes and/or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different courts upon the same issues.[48] | |||||