Scribd
Upload
168 views4 pages

REMEDIAL LAW Digest

The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent was guilty of forum shopping. Forum shopping occurs when a party avails several judicial remedies in different courts based on the same facts and issues. In this case, the petitioner filed a case for recovery of printers in RTC Pasig, while the respondent filed a case for rescission of contract in RTC Davao, both arising from the alleged breach of warranty over the same printers. This constitutes litis pendentia, which establishes forum shopping. Litis pendentia is present when there is identity of parties, rights/reliefs based on same facts, and a judgment in one case would result in res judicata in the other. As the elements were satisfied, forum shopping was found.

Uploaded by

Aly Comia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
168 views4 pages

REMEDIAL LAW Digest

The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent was guilty of forum shopping. Forum shopping occurs when a party avails several judicial remedies in different courts based on the same facts and issues. In this case, the petitioner filed a case for recovery of printers in RTC Pasig, while the respondent filed a case for rescission of contract in RTC Davao, both arising from the alleged breach of warranty over the same printers. This constitutes litis pendentia, which establishes forum shopping. Litis pendentia is present when there is identity of parties, rights/reliefs based on same facts, and a judgment in one case would result in res judicata in the other. As the elements were satisfied, forum shopping was found.

Uploaded by

Aly Comia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

G.R. No.

201396 October 25, 2019


YUSHI KONDO vs. TOYOTA BOSHOKU (PHILS.)
CORPORATION

Remedial law; Special Civil Action; Petitioner for Certiorari; The function of a
Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is the correction of
errors of jurisdiction. This is special mode of appeal may be availed of when a
court or tribunal gravely abuses it discretion by exercising the same capriciously,
arbitrarily or whimsically.
Same; Ordinary Civil Action; Petition for Review on Certiorari; The function of
a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 is for the correction of errors of
judgment that a court or tribunal makes in the exercise of its jurisdiction. This
ordinary mode of appeal may be availed of when a party seeks to question the
inherent correctness of a decision of court or tribunal that the later might make in
the exercise of its jurisdiction.

JARDELEZA, J.:

FACTS: Petitioner Kondo filed against Respondent Toyota a


complaint for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter (LA).The LA
ruled in his favor but this was reversed upon appeal with the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) . The NLRC ruled that he was
not illegally dismissed . Kondo then filed motion for reconsideration
(MR) which was denied. Thus, he filed a Petition for Certiorari under
Rule 65 with the CA wherein he claimed that the NLRC gravely
abused its discretion in deciding the case. The CA denied the petition
and noted that petitioner availed of the wrong remedy for the
reversal of the NLRC decision. This is because the office of a
Petition For Certiorari under Rule 65 is for correction of errors of
jurisdiction and not of errors of judgment.
Aggrieved, petitioner filed this present Petition for Review on
Certiorari under Rule 45 ascribing grave abuse of jurisdiction on the
CA for dismissing his petition for certiorari in not finding that the
NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the LA’s
decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner properly availed petition for
certiorari with the CA.
RULING: NEGATIVE. The petitioner was wrong in filing a
Petition for Certiorari when his purpose was to correct the errors in
the judgment rendered by the NLRC . The office of a Petition for
Certiorari under Rule 65 and Petition for Review on Certiorari under
Rule 45 are different. A Petition for Certiorari Under Rule 65 is a
special civil action designed to correct errors of jurisdiction and grave
abuse of discretion. On the other hand, a Petition for Review for
Certiorari under Rule 45 is designed to correct errors of judgment.
Where a petitioner files an appeal under Rule 65, he must show that
court acted in a capricious or arbitrary manner in exercising it
jurisdiction as to result in a lack of jurisdiction. With respect to errors
in judgment that the court may commit in the exercise of its
jurisdiction, it is only correctible thru an appeal via Petition for
Review on Certiorari under Rule 45. The inherent correctness of
decision of a court cannot be reviewed via Certiorari as long as this
error was committed in the exercise of a court’s jurisdiction. Availing
of one excludes the other. For this reason, it was illogical for
petitioner to have filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 and at
the same time question of correctness of the judgment of the NLRC.
These modes of appeal mutually exclusive and the basis for one is
incompatible as a basis for the other.
G.R. No. 195773 NOVEMBER 22, 2019
MULTISTIQ, INC. AND JUDITH M. LABURADA, vs.
MINDS VIEW GRAPHIC ADS

Remedial Law; Forum Shopping; Forum shopping take place when a party
avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively,
all substantially founded on the same facts and circumstances and all raising
substantially the same issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by
some other court.
Same; Existence of Litis Pendentia Constitutes Forum Shopping; Forum
Shopping exists when the all the elements of litis pendentia are present, to wit: (a)
identity of the parties; (b) identity of the rights asserted and reliefs prayed for
which are founded on the same facts ;and (c) the identity of the aforementioned
specifics is such that any judgment rendered in one action will, regardless which
party wins, amount to res judicata in another.
FACTS: A conditional contract of sale for a printer was entered into
by Petitioner Multistiq and Respondent Minds View. Pursuant to this,
petitioner delivered several defective printers. For this reason,
respondent stopped the payment of installments. This forced
petitioner to cancel their contract. Thereafter, petitioner filed a
petition for recovery of possession and replevin for the printers with
the RTC of Pasig. Respondent then filed an answer and
counterclaimed that the former had no cause of action against the
latter as it was guilty of breach of its warranty. In the meantime,
respondent filed a complaint for the rescission of the contract with
the RTC of Davao grounded on breach of Multistiq’s warranty over
the printers. In said complaint, it sought the return of the amount it
paid under the contract.
Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss before the RTC of Davao
alleging litis pendentia and forum shopping. The RTC of Davao ruled
in its favor. This decision was reversed upon appeal with the CA
hence this case with the SC. Petitioner contends that petitioner was
guilty of forum shopping and as such, the case before the RTC of
Davao should be dismissed.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Minds View is guilty of forum
shopping.
RULING: AFFIRMATIVE. Forum shopping take place when a
party avails of several judicial remedies in different courts,
simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same
facts and circumstances and all raising substantially the same issues
either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court.
Forum shopping exists when there is litis pendentia or when upon
final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another.
Accordingly, for there to be a litis pendentia the following must be
present, to wit: (a) identity of the parties; (b) identity of the rights
asserted and reliefs prayed for which are founded on the same facts
;and (c) the identity of the aforementioned specifics is such that any
judgment rendered in one action will, regardless which party wins,
amount to res judicata in another.
All of the elements of litis pendentia are present and thus there is
forum shopping. For the first requisite, the identity of the parties are
not in issue. They are the same parties for both cases. For the second
requisite, Minds View asserted the same rights and reliefs, i.e., a right
which arises from the breach of Multistiq’s warranty. Accordingly, in
the complaint for recovery of possession with replevin pending at the
RTC of Pasig, Minds View counterclaimed that Multistiq had no
cause of action against it as it was in breach of its warranty. On the
other hand, the complaint for rescission of contract filed at the RTC
of Davao was likewise founded on the breach of warranty. In this
instance, Minds View split its cause of action for the recovery of the
amount it paid under the contract which is not allowed under the
rules. Consequently, it could have been pleaded in the case pending
before the RTC of Pasig. As to the third requisite, the sameness of
both cases is such that any decision in one case would constitute a res
judicata in the other.

You might also like