This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-01-09 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| [6] Roxas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139337, August 15, 2001, 363 SCRA 207, 211. | |||||
|
2006-05-19 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| 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, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment.[12] Forum-shopping has likewise been defined as the act of a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum, seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion in another forum, other than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari, or the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.[13] | |||||
|
2004-08-31 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| The most important factor in determining the existence of forum shopping is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts to rule on the same or related causes or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs. A party, however, cannot be said to have sought to improve his chances of obtaining a favorable decision or action where no unfavorable decision has ever been rendered against him in any of the cases he has brought before the courts.[7] | |||||
|
2003-03-26 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Forum-shopping is considered a pernicious evil; it adversely affects the efficient administration of justice since it clogs the court dockets, unduly burdens the financial and human resources of the judiciary, and trifles with and mocks judicial processes.[16] The most important factor in determining the existence of forum shopping is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts to rule on the same or related causes or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs.[17] | |||||