This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-06-22 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The filing of identical petitions in different courts is prohibited, because such act constitutes forum shopping, a malpractice that is proscribed and condemned as trifling with the courts and as abusing their processes. Forum shopping is an improper conduct that degrades the administration of justice.[21] | |||||
|
2005-04-27 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Nolasco's petition had been correctly dismissed by the RTC on two grounds: that Nolasco's general interest as a taxpayer was not sufficient to establish any direct injury to him should the Project be awarded to Daewoo; and that the petition was a suit against the State, which may not prosper without its consent. Given that none of the parties are actually praying that Nolasco's motion for reconsideration be granted or that Nolasco's petition be reinstated, we need not review in depth the rationale of the RTC in dismissing Nolasco's petition. The mere invocation of standing as a tax payer does not mean that in each and every instance where such a ground is invoked courts are left with no alternative except to hear the parties, for the courts are vested with discretion whether or not a taxpayer's suit should be entertained.[53] We likewise find no error on the part of the RTC when it cited as basis for the dismissal of Nolasco's petition, our ruling in Bugnay Construction & Development Corp. v. Laron[54] that the taxpayer-plaintiff must specifically prove that he has sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation, and that he will sustain a direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the questioned statute or contract.[55] | |||||