"Identity Requirement" in Res Judicata & Litis Pendentia
The fundamental issue for our resolution is whether the filing by respondents with the MTC of an election protest and with the RTC a petition for injunction against complainant constitutes forum shopping.
To begin with, the essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. A party violates the rule against forum shopping if the elements of litis pendentia are present; or if a final judgment in one case would amount to res judicata in the other. Thus, there is forum shopping when the following elements concur: (1) identity of the parties or, at least, of the parties who represent the same interest in both actions; (2) identity of the rights asserted and relief prayed for, as the latter is founded on the same set of facts; and (3) identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in the other action will amount to res judicata in the action under consideration or will constitute litis pendentia.
Applying the foregoing elements to the present case, it is obvious that forum shopping does not exist. The allegations in the election protest and the petition for injunction show that, although there is an identity of parties, there is no identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for. In the election protest filed with the MTC, the issue is who between the parties won. Respondents prayed that Naputo be declared the rightful winner.
On the other hand, the petition for injunction, filed by the same respondents with the RTC, seeks to prevent complainant from participating in the June 14, 1997 election for president of the ABC in Taft, Eastern Samar.
It bears stressing that what was filed with the MTC by respondents was a protest, while the action they filed with the RTC was a petition for injunction. Obviously, the causes of action are different. Likewise, the reliefs prayed for are at variance with each other.
As the causes of action and the reliefs prayed for in the election protest and petition for injunction are entirely different, there can be no forum shopping.
Under Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, submission of a false certification on non-forum shopping constitutes indirect or direct contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions.
Here, complainant opted to file an administrative case for disbarment against respondents. Unfortunately, he failed to prove his allegation that respondents submitted to the RTC a false certification on non-forum shopping for actually they did not engage in forum shopping. (A.C. No. 5073; December 10, 2007)
To begin with, the essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. A party violates the rule against forum shopping if the elements of litis pendentia are present; or if a final judgment in one case would amount to res judicata in the other. Thus, there is forum shopping when the following elements concur: (1) identity of the parties or, at least, of the parties who represent the same interest in both actions; (2) identity of the rights asserted and relief prayed for, as the latter is founded on the same set of facts; and (3) identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in the other action will amount to res judicata in the action under consideration or will constitute litis pendentia.
Applying the foregoing elements to the present case, it is obvious that forum shopping does not exist. The allegations in the election protest and the petition for injunction show that, although there is an identity of parties, there is no identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for. In the election protest filed with the MTC, the issue is who between the parties won. Respondents prayed that Naputo be declared the rightful winner.
On the other hand, the petition for injunction, filed by the same respondents with the RTC, seeks to prevent complainant from participating in the June 14, 1997 election for president of the ABC in Taft, Eastern Samar.It bears stressing that what was filed with the MTC by respondents was a protest, while the action they filed with the RTC was a petition for injunction. Obviously, the causes of action are different. Likewise, the reliefs prayed for are at variance with each other.
As the causes of action and the reliefs prayed for in the election protest and petition for injunction are entirely different, there can be no forum shopping.
Under Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, submission of a false certification on non-forum shopping constitutes indirect or direct contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions.
Here, complainant opted to file an administrative case for disbarment against respondents. Unfortunately, he failed to prove his allegation that respondents submitted to the RTC a false certification on non-forum shopping for actually they did not engage in forum shopping. (A.C. No. 5073; December 10, 2007)