This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-07-08 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Instructive on this score is the recent case of Ching v. Cheng[105] (Ching) where the Court, in the interest of substantial justice and in view of the numerous procedural entanglements surrounding the resolution on the merits of the original controversy, resolved not to strictly apply the rule on forum shopping when it can be shown that: (1) the original case has been dismissed upon request of the plaintiff for valid procedural reasons; (2) the only pending matter is a motion for reconsideration; and (3) there are valid procedural reasons that serve the goal of substantial justice for the fresh new case to proceed. | |||||
|
2011-11-28 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The respondents opposed[27] the instant petition claiming that the petitioners are engaged in forum shopping. Specifically, G.R. Nos. 175507[28] and 183840,[29] both involving the contending parties in the instant petition were filed by the petitioners and are currently pending before this Court. Further, in Mendoza v. Hon. Teh,[30] the SC declared that whether a particular matter should be resolved by the RTC in the exercise of its general jurisdiction or its limited probate jurisdiction, is not a jurisdictional issue but a mere question of procedure. Besides, the petitioners, having validly submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the RTC and having actively participated in the trial of the case, are already estopped from challenging the RTC's jurisdiction over the respondents' Complaint and Amended Complaint.[31] | |||||