Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO v. MANUEL LACSON

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 173636 2016-01-13	HEIRS OF JOSE MA. GEPUELA v. HERNITA MEÑEZ-ANDRES JARDELEZA, J.
In Benedicto v. Lacson,[63] we held:The test to determine identity of causes of action is to ascertain whether the same evidence necessary to sustain the second cause of action is sufficient to authorize a recovery in the first, even if the forms or the nature of the two (2) actions are different from each other. If the same facts or evidence would sustain both, the two (2) actions are considered the same within the rule that the judgment in the former is a bar to the subsequent action; otherwise, it is not. This method has been considered the most accurate test as to whether a former judgment is a bar in subsequent proceedings between the same parties. It has even been designated as infallible.[64] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 184015 2012-02-08	SPS. MARIANO P. MARASIGAN AND JOSEFINA LEAL v. CHEVRON PHILS. MENDOZA, J.
The essence of forum shopping is the filing by a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum, seeking another and possibly favorable opinion in another suit other than by appeal or special civil action for certiorari. It is the act of 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. Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.[5]
	GR No. 174082 2012-01-16	GEORGIA T. ESTEL v. RECAREDO P. DIEGO PERALTA, J.
It is settled that with respect to the contents of the certification against forum shopping, the rule of substantial compliance may be availed of.[22] This is because the requirement of strict compliance with the provisions regarding the certification of non-forum shopping merely underscores its mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely disregarded.[23] It does not thereby interdict substantial compliance with its provisions under justifiable circumstances, as the Court finds in the instant case.[24]
	GR No. 193247 2011-09-14	SERGIO I. CARBONILLA v. BOARD OF AIRLINES REPRESENTATIVES CARPIO, J.
As regards the certification of non-forum shopping, this Court may relax the rigid application of the rules to afford the parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merits.[33] This is in line with the principle that cases should be decided only after giving all parties the chance to argue their causes and defenses.[34] Technicality and procedural imperfections should not serve as basis of decisions and should not be used to defeat the substantive rights of the other party.[35]
	GR No. 167809 2008-11-27	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. JOSEFINA R. DUMLAO REYES, R.T., J.
The properties are covered by: (1) Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-1180 with an area of 11.33 hectares;[5] (2) TCT No. 41508 consisting of 6.2201 hectares;[6] (3) TCT No. 41507 with an area of 4.0001 hectares;[7] (4) TCT No. 41506 consisting of 3.9878 hectares;[8] (5) TCT No. 41504 consisting of 5.0639 hectares; and (6) TCT No. 41505 with an area of 1.6360 hectares.