Jurisprudence on Forum Shopping

Equitable Phil. Commercial International Bank, et al vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 143556, March 16, 2004

A party is guilty of forum shopping when he repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in, or already resolved adversely, by some other court. For a charge of forum shopping to prosper, there must exist between an action pending in one court and another action before another court:

(a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions;
(b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and
(c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.

In the cited cases, we find there is no identity of parties because the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 6014, Sa Amin, is not a party in Civil Case No. Q-95-25073, although both Sta. Rosa and petitioners are impleaded as parties in different capacities. In Civil Case No. 6014 petitioner PCIB (now Equitable-PCIB) is an intervenor, while Sta. Rosa is the defendant. On the other hand, in Civil Case No. Q-95-25073, Sta. Rosa is the plaintiff while petitioners are the defendants. Apparently, the parties represented different interests in these cases.

Neither is there identity of rights asserted or relief sought. In Civil Case No. 6014, Sta. Rosa is defending its right as a debtor in a collection case where petitioners are the intervenors, while in Civil Case No. Q-95-25073, Sta. Rosa is asserting its right as a depositor to file a damage suit against the defendant, now petitioner bank. Indeed, the two proceedings are far from identical so that a judgment in Civil Case No. 6014 will not amount to res judicata in Civil Case No. Q-95-25073, a matter we shall discuss later in detail.

Res judicata or bar by prior judgment is a doctrine which holds that a matter that has been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction must be deemed to have been finally and conclusively settled if it arises in any subsequent litigation between the same parties and for the same cause. 19 For a claim of res judicata to prosper, the following requisites must concur:

(1) there must be a final judgment or order;
(2) the court rendering it must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties;
(3) it must be a judgment or order on the merits; and
(4) there must be, between the two cases, identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action.

People of the Phil. vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 149495, August 21, 2003

Such move clearly constitutes forum-shopping. As held by Candido v. Camacho, forum-shopping exists "when a party repetitively avails himself of several judicial remedies in different venues, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions, essential facts and circumstances, all raising substantially the same issues and involving exactly the same parties."

A becoming regard for this Court should have prevailed upon to await the outcome of the instant Petition. Making petitioner attend to separate trials is an all too familiar plaint of prosecutors. This fact does not, however, justify a disregard of the rule against forum-shopping or relieve petitioner from the negative consequences of its act. Violation of the forum-shopping prohibition, by itself, is a ground for summary dismissal of the instant Petition.

Luz E. Taganas, et al. vs. Meliton G. Emuslan, et al., G.R. No. 146980, September 3, 2003

Res judicata refers to the rule that a final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits on all points and matters determined in the former suit.

The elements of res judicata are as follows:

(1) the former judgment or order must be final;
(2) the judgment or order must be on the merits;
(3) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties;
(4) there must be, between the first and the second action, identity of parties, of subject matter and cause of action.

For res judicata to apply, all the above essential requisites must exist.

Reynaldo L. Laureano vs. Bormaheco, INC., et al., G.R. No. 137619, February 6, 2001

Upon the claim of forum shopping, the private respondent has listed down a number of cases filed by the spouses Reynaldo and Florencia Laureano, allegedly involving the same properties, and is asking this Court to declare the Laureano spouses guilty of forum shopping. This is the second time that this Court has encountered this long list of cases, the first instance being in the case of Laureano Investment and Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals. Unfortunately, as in the aforecited case, Bormaheco did not go beyond the enumeration of the cases, leaving its allegation of forum shopping bare and unsubstantiated. Without any showing that the cases listed have identity of parties, causes of action and reliefs sought, neither can we make any valid determination as to whether the rules on non-forum shopping were violated.

Rufino Valencia vs. Court Of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 119118, February 19, 2001

On the issue of forum-shopping, the rule is, there is forum-shopping when as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another and that the actions that were filed involve the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances. There must also be identical causes of action, subject matter and issues in the cases before the two fora.

The petition for relief in the trial court and the petition for annulment of judgment in the Court of Appeals emanate from the same transaction, which is the lease contract between petitioner and the Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos (RCBM). They also involve the same facts and circumstances. Recall that upon the execution of the aforecited contract, petitioner occupied the fishpond where he invested considerable amount of money. When private respondents filed their complaint for cancellation of RCBM's title over the fishpond, its possession was removed from petitioner, who consequently filed an answer in intervention, with counterclaim for the damages he incurred. The trial court disposed the complaint upholding the RCBM's title. However, the same court dismissed petitioner's counterclaim. As petitioner failed to move for reconsideration or appeal the portion of the decision adverse to him, he filed the petition for relief with the trial court, which in turn deferred action thereto. Consequently, petitioner filed the petition for certiorari with annulment of judgment with the Court of Appeals. Clearly, the two actions resulted from the same facts and circumstances. The two petitions also involve identical cause of action. Both were for the setting aside or annulment of that portion of the trial court's judgment dismissing petitioner's counterclaim on the ground of fraud. The two petitions also involve the same subject matter or issue of whether petitioner has meritorious counterclaim which, for alleged lack of notice for the pre-trial conference, he failed to prove. Clearly, there is forum-shopping and the Court of Appeals did not err when it declared so in its February 10, 1995 resolution.

United Residents of Dominican Hills, Inc. vs. Comm. on the Settlement of Land Problems, G.R. No. 135945, March 7, 2001

In the same manner, the plaintiffs in the three (3) different cases were made to appear as dissimilar: in Civil Case No. 3316-R, the plaintiff was ASSOCIATION of which private respondent Mario Padilan was head, while the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 3382-R was the BENEFICIARIES. Before the COSLAP, private respondents themselves were the petitioners, led again by Padilan. 34 Private respondents also attempted to vary their causes of action: in Civil Case No. 3382-R and COSLAP Case No. 98-253, they seek the annulment of the Memorandum of Agreement executed by and among UNITED, the PMS, and HIGC as well as the transfer certificates of title accordingly issued to petitioner. All three (3) cases sought to enjoin the demolition of private respondents' houses.

It has been held that forum shopping is evident where the elements of litis pendentia or res judicata are present. Private respondents' subterfuge comes to naught, for the effects of res judicata or litis pendentia may not be avoided by varying the designation of the parties or changing the form of the action or adopting a different mode of presenting one's case.

Marcelo Lee et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 118387, October11, 2001

Forum shopping is present when in the two or more cases pending there is identity of parties, rights or causes of action and reliefs sought. Even a cursory examination of the pleadings filed by private respondents in their various cases against petitioners would reveal that at the very least there is no identity of rights or causes of action and reliefs prayed for. The present case has its roots in two (2) petitions filed under Rule 108, the purpose of which is to correct and/or cancel certain entries in petitioners' birth records. Suffice it to state, the cause of action in these Rule 108 petitions and the relief sought therefrom are very different from those in the criminal complaint against petitioners and their father which has for its cause of action, the commission of a crime as defined and penalized under the Revised Penal Code, and which seeks the punishment of the accused; or the action for the cancellation of Lee Tek Sheng naturalization certificate which has for its cause of action the commission by Lee Tek Sheng of an immoral act, and his ultimate deportation for its object; or for that matter, the action for partition of Keh Shiok Cheng's estate which has for its cause of action the private respondents' right under the New Civil Code to inherit from their mother's estate.

We therefore concur in the finding of the Court of Appeals that there is no forum shopping to speak of in the concept that this is described and contemplated in Circular No. 28-91 of the Supreme Court.

Roberto S. Benedicto vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125359, September 4, 2001

For a charge of forum shopping to prosper, there must exist between an action pending in one court and another action before another court:

(a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions;
(b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and
(c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.

Here, we find that the single act of receiving unreported interest earnings on Treasury Notes held abroad constitutes an offense against two or more distinct and unrelated laws, Circular No. 960 and R.A. 3019. Said laws define distinct offenses, penalize different acts, and can be applied independently. Hence, no fault lies at the prosecution's door for having instituted separate cases before separate tribunals involving the same subject matter.

Virginia Gochan et al vs. Mercedes Gochan et al., G.R. No. 146089, December 13, 2001

Respondents accuse petitioners of forum-shopping when they filed two petitions before the Court of Appeals. Petitioners, on the other hand, contend that there was no forum-shopping as there was no identity of issues or identity of reliefs sought in the two petitions.

We agree with petitioners that they are not guilty of forum-shopping. The deplorable practice of forum-shopping is resorted to by litigants who, for the purpose of obtaining the same relief, resort to two different fora to increase his or her chances of obtaining a favorable judgment in either one. In the case of Golangco v. Court of Appeals, we laid down the following test to determine whether there is forum-shopping:

Ultimately, what is truly important to consider in determining whether forum-shopping exists or not is the vexation caused the courts and the parties-litigant by a person who asks different courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related causes and/or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issues.

In sum, two different orders were questioned, two distinct causes of action and issues were raised, and two objectives were sought; thus, forum shopping cannot be said to exist in the case at bar.

Likewise, we do not find that there is forum-shopping in the case at bar. The first petition, docketed as CA-G.R. SP. No. 49084, which is now the subject of the instant petition, involved the propriety of the affirmative defenses relied upon by petitioners in Civil Case No. CEB-21854. The second petition, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 54985, raised the issue of whether or not public respondent Judge Dicdican was guilty of manifest partiality warranting his inhibition from further hearing Civil Case No. CEB-21854.

More importantly, the two petitions did not seek the same relief from the Court of Appeals. In CA-G.R. SP. No. 49084, petitioners prayed, among others, for the annulment of the orders of the trial court denying their motion for preliminary hearing on the affirmative defenses in Civil Case No. CEB-21854. No such reliefs are involved in the second petition, where petitioners merely prayed for the issuance of an order enjoining public respondent Judge Dicdican from further trying the case and to assign a new judge in his stead.

Sps. Angel Sadang vs. CA , G.R. No. 140138. October 11, 2006

This Court fully agrees with the Court of Appeals that there has been a violation of the rule on forum shopping by the non-disclosure of the filing with an administrative agency, the HLURB, of a complaint raising the same issues as those brought before the Regional Trial Court by petitioners herein. For while the decision of the HLURB may not necessarily constitute res judicata to bar the suit filed in the Regional Trial Court, so that strictly speaking it is not a lis pendens relative to the suit filed in court, the purpose of including the words "or agency" in addition to "any other tribunal" in the non-forum shopping certificate required is to advise the court of the possible application of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, namely, that technical matters such as zoning classifications and building certifications should be primarily resolved first by the administrative agency whose expertise relates thereto.

As the Court of Appeals rightly pointed out, petitioner Angel I. Sadang himself filed the complaint before the HLURB and took the appeal from its decision to the Office of the President. The non-disclosure of this fact in his non-forum shopping certification provided sufficient ground to dismiss the complaint. After all, the dismissal is, as stated in the dispositive portion of the decision of the Court of Appeals, "without prejudice."

Marcelina Venzon vs. Sps. Santos, G.R. No. 128308. April 14, 2004

Respondent spouses charge petitioner with violating the rule against forum-shopping by the simultaneous institution by the latter of the action before the HLURB with the action before the RTC. Forum-shopping is the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court might look with favor upon the party.

The HLURB Complaint is grounded upon the alleged refusal of the therein respondent Encarnacion Gonzales to accept payment of the balance of the purchase price in accordance with the contract to sell between her and petitioner, causing damage to the latter. It prayed for, among other things, the conveyance of the subject property to, and an award of damages in favor of, petitioner.

On the other hand, the action before the RTC arose from the purported failure of the defendant deputy sheriff, in connivance with respondent spouses, to notify petitioner of the auction sale, for which petitioner suffered damage. It asked for, among other things, the annulment of the certificate of said sale as well as an adjudication of damages.

Plainly, the two actions spring from different causes arising from different factual circumstances and seek different reliefs. The charge of forum-shopping is patently without merit.

Marina Properties Corporation vs. CA, G.R. No. 125447. August 14, 1998

The issue of forum shopping raised by MARINA deserves scant consideration. H.L. CARLOS was not guilty of forum shopping when it sued MARINA before the HLURB to enforce their Contract To Purchase and To Sell. Forum shopping is the act of a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum, of seeking another (and possibly favorable) opinion in another forum other than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari, or the institution of two (2) or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court might look with favor upon the party. Contrary to MARINA's, assertion, H.L. CARLOS' complaint was hardly a duplication of Civil Case. No. 89-5870 which was filed to collect the sum of money corresponding to unpaid billings from their Construction Contract. The cause of action in the civil case was, therefore, totally distinct from the cause of action in the complaint before the HLURB. For this reason, neither could there have been splitting of a cause of action.