This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-01-20 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Forum shopping is committed by a party who, having received an adverse judgment in one forum, seeks another opinion in another court, other than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari. More accurately, however, forum shopping is the institution of two or more suits in different courts, either simultaneously or successively, in order to ask the courts to rule on the same or related causes and/or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs.[53] 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, to secure a favorable judgment. Forum-shopping is present when in the two or more cases pending, there is identity of parties, rights of action and reliefs sought.[54] | |||||
|
2005-06-21 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Forum-shopping takes place when a litigant files multiple suits involving the same parties, either simultaneously or successively, to secure a favorable judgment.[32] Thus, it exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present, namely: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties who 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 with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases is such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other case.[33] Forum-shopping is an act of malpractice because it abuses court processes.[34] To check this pernicious practice, Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requires the principal party in an initiatory pleading to submit a certification against forum-shopping.[35] Failure to comply with this requirement is a cause for the dismissal of the case and, in case of willful forum-shopping, for the imposition of administrative sanctions. | |||||
|
2003-06-10 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be filed by the accused in the criminal case, but any cause of action which could have been the subject thereof may be litigated in a separate civil action. (Emphasis supplied) This paragraph was incorporated in the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure to address the lacuna mentioned in Cabaero v. Cantos[18] where the Court noted the "absence of clear-cut rules governing the prosecution of impliedly instituted civil action and the necessary consequences and implications thereof."[19] In the same vein, the Court in Cabaero clarified that:[T]he counterclaim of the accused cannot be tried together with the criminal case because, as already discussed, it will unnecessarily complicate and confuse the criminal proceedings. Thus, the trial court should confine itself to the criminal aspect and the possible civil liability of the accused arising out of the crime. The counterclaim (and cross-claim or third party complaint, if any) should be set aside or refused cognizance without prejudice to their filing in separate proceedings at the proper time. Thus, a counterclaim in a criminal case must be litigated separately to avoid complication and confusion in the resolution of the criminal cases. This is the rationale behind Section 1 of Rule 111. The same rationale applies to NIC's collection case against petitioner and DPWH. Thus, NIC's collection case must be litigated separately before the Malabon trial court to avoid confusion in resolving the criminal cases with the Sandiganbayan. | |||||
|
2002-11-12 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| effect in the instant case considering that statutes regulating the procedure of the court are construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage.[18] Section 1, Rule 111, of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. (a) When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the | |||||