Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ASIA UNITED BANK v. GOODLAND COMPANY

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 172909 2014-03-05	SPS. SILVESTRE O. PLAZA AND ELENA Y. PLAZA v. GUILLERMO LUSTIVA BRION, J.
Noticeable among these three types of forum shopping is the identity of the cause of action in the different cases filed. Cause of action is "the act or omission by which a party violates the right of another."[28]
	GR No. 184079 2013-04-17	SPS. ARMANDO SILVERIO v. SPS. RICARDO AND EVELYN MARCELO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Common to these types of forum shopping is the identity of the cause of action in the different cases filed. Cause of action is defined as "the act or omission by which a party violates the right of another."[43]
	GR No. 195546 2012-03-14	GOODLAND COMPANY v. ASIA UNITED BANK VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The substantial identity of the two cases remains even if the parties should add different grounds or legal theories for the nullity of the REM or should alter the designation or form of the action. The well-entrenched rule is that "a party cannot, by varying the form of action, or adopting a different method of presenting his case, escape the operation of the principle that one and the same cause of action shall not be twice litigated.[26] (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 181485 2012-02-15	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. GATEWAY PROPERTY HOLDINGS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
That GPHI put forward additional grounds in Civil Case No. TM-1108 (Annulment of the Foreclosure Sale), i.e., that the auction sale was not conducted at a public place in contravention of the requirement of Section 4 of Act No. 3135 and that the foreclosure was prematurely resorted to given that GPHI cannot yet be considered in default, does not alter the fact that there exists an identity of causes of action in the two cases. In Asia United Bank v. Goodland Company, Inc.,[42] the Court held that "[t]he well-entrenched rule is that 'a party cannot, by varying the form of action, or adopting a different method of presenting his case, escape the operation of the principle that one and the same cause of action shall not be twice litigated.'"[43]
	GR No. 163433 2011-08-22	SPS. NELSON R. VILLANUEVA AND MYRA P. VILLANUEVA v. CA PERALTA, J.
Forum shopping can be committed in three ways: (1) by filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal is litis pendentia); (2) by filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved (where the ground for dismissal is res judicata); and (3) by filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action but with different prayers (splitting of causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res judicata).[28]