You are on page 1of 2

There is forum-shopping whenever as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal

or certiorari) in another. The principle applies not only with respect to suits filed in the courts while an administrative proceeding is pending as in this case in order to defeat administrative processes and in anticipation of an unfavorable administrative ruling and a favorable court ruling. . . . A violation of this rule shall constitute contempt of court and shall be a cause for summary dismissal of both petitions, without prejudice to the taking of appropriate action against the counsel or the party concerned. The mere filing of several cases based on the same incident does not necessarily constitute forum-shopping. The test is whether the several actions filed involve the same transactions, essential facts, and circumstances. 14 Here, although several cases were filed by the same complainant against the same defendant and the subject matter of the actions of two of the cases was the same incident (i.e., the application for free patent of petitioner Ceferino Paredes, Jr.), the fact is that the several cases involve essentially different facts, circumstances and causes of action. Applying the Rules of Civil Procedure suppletorily, the failure to comply with the non-forum shopping requirements of Section 5 of Rule 7 does not automatically warrant the dismissal of the case with prejudice as petitioner insists. The Rule states that the dismissal is without prejudic e. The dismissal may be with prejudice but only upon motion and after hearing. Here, a motion was made by petitioner and a hearing conducted by the trial court. The court found that there was a certificate against forum shopping attached to the petition bu t the certificate did not completely state all the cases filed and pending at the time of filing of the petition. There was no allegation that private respondent submitted a false certification as to constitute contempt of court. Neither was there evidence that private respondent and his counsels committed acts amounting to a willful and deliberate forum shopping as to warrant the summary dismissal of the case and the imposition of direct contempt on them. Accordingly, the trial court found it just and proper not to dismiss the case Forum-shopping exists when the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. *Alejandrino v. Court of Appeals, 295 SCRA 536, 554 (1998); Philippine Womans Christian Temperance Union, Inc. v. Abiertas House of Friendship, Inc., 292 SCRA 785, 794 (1998)] Litis pendentia requires the concurrence of the following requisites: 1. Identity of parties, or at least such parties as those representing the same interests in both actions;

2. Identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts; and 3. Identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases, such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case, re gardless of which party is successful, would amount to res adjudicata in the other case. *Philippine Womans Christian Temperance Union, Inc. v. Abiertas House of Friendship, Inc., supra., at 791; citations omitted.]