Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. CARMEL DEVELOPMENT

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 197937 2013-04-03	FILM DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF PHILIPPINES v. SM PRIME HOLDINGS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The requisites in order that an action may be dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia are: (a) the identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interest in both actions; (b) the identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts, and (c) the identity of the two cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other.[24]
	GR NO. 140862 2006-04-25	WILSON GO v. ANITA RICO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
It bears stressing that a certification by counsel and not by the principal party himself is no certification at all. The reason for requiring that it must be signed by the principal party himself is that he has actual knowledge, or knows better than anyone else, whether he has initiated similar action/s in other courts, agencies or tribunals.[10] Clearly, the subject petition suffers from a fatal defect warranting its dismissal[11] by the Court of Appeals in its assailed Resolutions.
	GR NO. 158455 2005-06-28	SHERWILL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. SITIO STO. NIÑO RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION CALLEJO, SR., J.
The OSG, likewise, avers that the petitioner is guilty of violating Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, on certification against forum shopping. It points out that the petitioner's representative, Roland Leslie V. Lipio, certified under oath that the petitioner "had no knowledge of any action pending before any tribunal or agency." It further points out that it cannot be said that the petitioner was unaware of LMB Case No. 7-98, since it even filed an Answer therein on July 31, 1995. To justify the dismissal of the case, the OSG cites the ruling of the Court in Republic v. Carmel Development, Inc.[17]
	GR NO. 154188 2005-06-15	MONDRAGON LEISURE v. VS.CA QUISUMBING, J.
As pointed out by the Court of Appeals, forum shopping exists when both actions involve the same transactions, with the same essential facts and circumstances; and where identical causes of actions, subject matter and issues are raised. 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 will amount to res judicata in another.[12] The requisites in order that an action may be dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia are (a) the identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interest in both actions; (b) the identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other.[13] Such requisites are not present in this controversy.
	GR NO. 164338 2005-01-17	GUARANTEED HOTELS v. JOSEFINA S. BALTAO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
(c) the identity in the two cases should be such that the judgment that may be rendered in one would, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the other.[19]
	GR No. 155618 2003-03-26	EDGAR Y. SANTOS v. COMELEC YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Considering that respondent was indubitably guilty of forum-shopping when he filed SPR No. 37-2002, his petition should have been dismissed outright by the COMELEC.[18] Willful and deliberate forum-shopping is a ground for summary dismissal of the case, and constitutes direct contempt of court.[19]
	Adm. Case No. 4766 2002-12-27	T’BOLI AGRO-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT v. ATTY. NEPTHALI P. SOLILAPSI Mendoza, J.
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.[21] These requisites are present in this case. First. Respondent contends that there was no identity of parties involved in the cases.