Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ZENAIDA POLANCO v. CARMEN CRUZ

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 208792 2015-07-22	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. SPS. ROBERTO AND TERESITA GENUINO LEONEN, J.
This court has allowed cases to proceed despite failure by the plaintiff to promptly move for pre-trial when it finds that "the extreme sanction of dismissal of the complaint might not be warranted":[36]
	GR No. 173331 2013-12-11	FLORPINA BENAVIDEZ v. NESTOR SALVADOR MENDOZA, J.
On the other hand, forum shopping exists when, as a result of an adverse decision in one forum, or in anticipation thereof, a party seeks a favorable opinion in another forum through means other than appeal or certiorari.[21]
	AC. No. 6760 2013-01-30	ANASTACIO N. TEODORO III v. ATTY. ROMEO S. GONZALES BRION, J.
Forum shopping exists when, as a result of an adverse decision in one forum, or in anticipation thereof, a party seeks a favorable opinion in another forum through means other than appeal or certiorari.[8]
	GR No. 152239 2011-08-17	MAKING ENTERPRISES v. JOSE MARFORI VILLARAMA, JR., J.
There is forum-shopping when as a result of an adverse decision in one forum, or in anticipation thereof, a party seeks a favorable opinion in another forum through means other than appeal or certiorari. Forum-shopping exists when two or more actions involve the same transactions, essential facts, and circumstances; and raise identical causes of action, subject matter, and issues. Forum-shopping exists when the elements oflitis pendentiaare present or where a final judgment in one case will amount tores judicatain the other.[30] Thus, there is forum-shopping when, between an action pending before this Court and another one, there exist: (1) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions, (2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts, and (3) 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 tores judicatain the action under consideration; said requisites also constitutive of the requisites forauter action pendantorlis pendens.[31]
	GR No. 176008 2011-08-10	METROPOLITAN BANK v. INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK PERALTA, J.
Forum shopping exists when two or more actions involve the same transactions, essential facts and circumstances, and raise identical causes of action, subject matter, and issues.[30] Still another test of forum shopping is when the elements of litis pendencia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another - whether in the two or more pending cases, there is an identity of (a) parties (or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions); (b) rights or causes of action, and (c) reliefs sought.[31]
	GR No. 177456 2009-09-04	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. DOMINGO R. DANDO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This is not to say that adherence to the Rules could be dispensed with. However, exigencies and situations might occasionally demand flexibility in their application.[30] In not a few instances, the Court relaxed the rigid application of the rules of procedure to afford the parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merit. This is in line with the time-honored principle that cases should be decided only after giving all parties the chance to argue their causes and defenses. Technicality and procedural imperfection should, thus, not serve as basis of decisions. In that way, the ends of justice would be better served. For, indeed, the general objective of procedure is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties, bearing always in mind that procedure is not to hinder but to promote the administration of justice.[31]
	GR No. 177456 2009-09-04	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. DOMINGO R. DANDO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Accordingly, the ends of justice and fairness would be best served if the parties to Civil Case No. 03-281 are given the full opportunity to thresh out the real issues and litigate their claims in a full-blown trial. Besides, Dando would not be prejudiced should the RTC proceed with the hearing of Civil Case No. 03-281, as he is not stripped of any affirmative defenses nor deprived of due process of law.[39]
	GR No. 182267 2009-08-28	PAGAYANAN R. HADJI-SIRAD v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This is not to say that adherence to the Rules could be dispensed with. However, exigencies and situations might occasionally demand flexibility in their application.[20] In not a few instances, the Court relaxed the rigid application of the rules of procedure to afford the parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merit. This is in line with the time-honored principle that cases should be decided only after giving all parties the chance to argue their causes and defenses. Technicality and procedural imperfection should, thus, not serve as basis of decisions. In that way, the ends of justice would be better served. For, indeed, the general objective of procedure is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties, bearing always in mind that procedure is not to hinder but to promote the administration of justice.[21]