G.R. No.

159691 February 17, 2014

HEIRS OF MARCELO SOTTO, REPRESENTED BY: LOLIBETH SOTTO NOBLE,

DANILO C. SOTTO, CRISTINA C. SOTTO, EMMANUEL C. SOTTO and FILEMON
C. SOTTO; and SALVACION BARCELONA, AS HEIR OF DECEASED MIGUEL
BARCELONA, Petitioners,
vs.
MATILDE S. PALICTE, Respondent.

“The acts of a party or his counsel clearly constituting willful and deliberate forum shopping
shall be ground for the summary dismissal of the case with prejudice, and shall constitute direct
contempt, as well as be a cause for administrative sanctions against the lawyer. Forum
shopping can be committed in either of three ways, namely: (1) filing multiple cases
based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not
having been resolved yet (litis pendentia); (2) filing multiple cases based on the
same cause of action and the same prayer, the previous case having been finally
resolved (res judicata); or (3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of
action but with different prayers (splitting of causes of action, where the ground for
dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res judicata). If the forum shopping is not
willful and deliberate, the subsequent cases shall be dismissed without prejudice on one of the
two grounds mentioned above. But if the forum shopping is willful and deliberate, both (or all, if
there are more than two) actions shall be dismissed with prejudice.”

When forum shopping exists.

Forum shopping exists when, as a result of an adverse judgment in one forum,
a party seeks another and possibly favorable judgment in another forum other than by
appeal or special civil action for certiorari. There is also forum shopping when a party
institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the
gamble that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. (Mun. of Taguig
v. CA, G.R. No. 142619, September 13, 2005, 469 SCRA 588; Fels Energy, Inc. v. The
Province of Batangas, et al., G.R. No. 168557, February 16, 2007).

Factor that determines the

existence of forum shopping.
An important factor in determining the existence of forum shopping is the
vexation caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of similar cases to
claim substantially the same reliefs. The rationale against forum shopping is that a party
should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in two different fora. Filing
multiple petitions or complaints constitutes abuse of court processes, which tends to
degrade the administration of justice, wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial procedure, and
adds to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts. (Wee v. Galvez,
G.R. No. 147394, August 11, 2004, 436 SCRA 96; Fels Energy Inc. v. Province of
Batangas, et al., G.R. No. 168557, February 16, 2007).

There is forum shopping when there exist: (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 pending case,
regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other. (Fels
Energy, Inc. v. The Province of Batangas, et al.).