Liberal interpretation of policy against forum shopping

It has also been held that the rules on forum shopping, which were precisely designed to promote and
facilitate the orderly administration of justice, should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness
as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective which is the goal of all rules of procedure —
that is, to achieve substantial justice as expeditiously as possible (Great Southern Maritime Services
Corp. v. Acuna, 452 SCRA 422, 435).

How to determine the existence of Forum Shopping

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. 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, regardless of which party is successful would amount to res
adjudicata in the other case (Lim v. Vianzon, G.R. No. 137187, August 3, 2006).

Otherwise stated, to determine forum shopping, the test is to see whether in the two or more cases
pending, there is identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought. (Huibonhoa v.
Concepcion, G.R. No. 153785 (Resolution), [August 3, 2006], 529 PHIL 554-564)

Where Forum Shopping is not applicable

Where the reliefs sought in the two actions are different, there is no forum shopping even if the
parties in the actions are the same. Where one action is for a permanent injunction and the other is a
petition for certiorari, there is no identity of reliefs (Huibonhoa v. Concepcion).

Assuming separate actions have been filed by different parties involving essentially the same subject
matter, no forum shopping is committed where the parties did not resort to multiple judicial remedies. 44
In any event, we have stated in the past that the rules on forum shopping are not always applied with
inflexibility. (Ient v. Tullett Prebon (Philippines), Inc., G.R. Nos. 189158 & 189530, [January 11, 2017],
803 PHIL 163-207)

Three ways of committing forum shopping

The Supreme Court enumerated the ways by which forum shopping may be committed, thus:

(1) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case
not having been resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal is litis pendentia)',

(2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the previous case having
been finally resolved (where the ground for dismissal is res judicata); and
(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) (Chua v.
MetroBank, 596 SCRA 524, 535-536).

Cause of Action

(Resolution vs Specific Performance)

Breach of contract may give rise to an action for specific performance or rescission of contract.  It
may also be the cause of action in a complaint for damages filed pursuant to Art. 1170 of the Civil
Code. (Spouses Pajares v. Remarkable Laundry and Dry Cleaning, G.R. No. 212690, [February 20,
2017], 806 PHIL 39-58)

Breach of Contract – Failure of a party without legal reason/excuse to comply with the terms of a
contract incumbent upon him.

Breach of Faith – the obligor’s failure to comply with an obligation already extant, not a failure
of a condition to render binding that obligation.  There can be no rescission of an obligation that
is non-existent, considering that the suspensive condition therefore has not yet happened.

Article 1191 of the Civil Code

“The power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should
not comply with what is incumbent upon him.

The injured party may choose between the fulfillment and the rescission of the obligation,
with the payment of damages in either case. He may also seek rescission, even after he has
chosen fulfillment, if the latter should become impossible.

The court shall decree the rescission claimed, unless there be just cause authorizing the fixing of a
period.

This is understood to be without prejudice to the rights of third persons who have acquired the
thing, in accordance with Articles 1385 and 1388 and the Mortgage Law. (1124)”

Remedies Available to the Aggrieved Party

1. Specific performance or fulfillment of the obligation with damages;

2. Rescission of the contract with damages

The injured party cannot seek both, except:

If fulfillment had been chosen but the the same had become impossible, rescission may still be
sought.(Art 1191 par 2)

If there is a valid basis for the extension of the performance of reciprocal obligation, the court will not
decree rescission but will rather fix a period for the fulfillment of the obligation. (Art. 1191 par 3)

The Power to Rescind an Obligation

 1. The party who has the right to cancel  or resolve the reciprocal obligation in case of non-
fulfillment on the part of one contracting parties.
2. The party who is ready, willing and able to comply with his own obligations
3. The party who is in the position to return whatever he may be obliged to return to the other party

 In reciprocal obligations, the power to (rescind) resolve is given to the injured/aggrieved party because
the party who is at wrong cannot use his own wrong for his own benefit or protection.

"Resolution," the action referred to in Article 1191 of the Civil Code, is based on the defendant's

breach of faith, a violation of the reciprocity between the parties (Heirs of Paclit v. Belisario, G.R. No.
189418 (Resolution), [June 20, 2012], 688 PHIL 570-581)

Rescission of contract under Article 1191 of the Civil Code is a remedy available to the obligee when the
obligor cannot comply with what is incumbent upon him.It is predicated on a breach of faith by the other
party who violates the reciprocity between them. Rescission may also refer to a remedy granted by law to
the contracting parties and sometimes even to third persons in order to secure reparation of damages
caused them by a valid contract; by means of restoration of things to their condition in which they were
prior to the celebration of the contract. . (Spouses Pajares v. Remarkable Laundry and Dry Cleaning,
G.R. No. 212690, [February 20, 2017], 806 PHIL 39-58)

“Specific performance” on the other hand, is the remedy of requiring exact performance of a contract in
the specific form in which it was made, or according to the precise terms agreed upon. It is the actual
accomplishment of a contract by a party bound to fulfill it." (Spouses Pajares v. Remarkable Laundry and
Dry Cleaning, G.R. No. 212690, [February 20, 2017], 806 PHIL 39-58)