Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 71 views

    G.R. No. 200191

    Uploaded by

    anna
    The document discusses three Supreme Court cases related to procedural requirements. The first case discusses relaxing procedural rules when there is substantial compliance and justice requires it. The second case establishes the test for determining forum shopping is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present or if a judgment would result in res judicata. The third case ruled that where co-petitioners are relatives with a common interest in a property, one petitioner signing verification is sufficient.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    G.R. No. 200191

    Uploaded by

    anna
    71 views1 page
    The document discusses three Supreme Court cases related to procedural requirements. The first case discusses relaxing procedural rules when there is substantial compliance and justice requires it. The second case establishes the test for determining forum shopping is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present or if a judgment would result in res judicata. The third case ruled that where co-petitioners are relatives with a common interest in a property, one petitioner signing verification is sufficient.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses three Supreme Court cases related to procedural requirements. The first case discusses relaxing procedural rules when there is substantial compliance and justice requires it. The second case establishes the test for determining forum shopping is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present or if a judgment would result in res judicata. The third case ruled that where co-petitioners are relatives with a common interest in a property, one petitioner signing verification is sufficient.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    71 views1 page

    G.R. No. 200191

    Uploaded by

    anna
    The document discusses three Supreme Court cases related to procedural requirements. The first case discusses relaxing procedural rules when there is substantial compliance and justice requires it. The second case establishes the test for determining forum shopping is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present or if a judgment would result in res judicata. The third case ruled that where co-petitioners are relatives with a common interest in a property, one petitioner signing verification is sufficient.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    The main issue of this case is whether or not there is poper verification of the

    complaint. Contrary to Uniwide’s claim, the records of the case show that the
    petition’s verification page contains Trajano’s competent evidence of identity,
    specifically, Passport No. XX041470. Trajano’s failure to furnish Uniwide a
    copy of the petition containing his competent evidence of identity is a minor
    error that this Court may and chooses to brush aside in the interest of
    substantial justice. This Court has, in proper instances, relaxed the application
    of the Rules of Procedure when the party has shown substantial compliance
    with it. In these cases, The court have held that the rules of procedure should
    not be applied in a very technical sense when it defeats the purpose for which
    it had been enacted, i.e., to ensure the orderly, just and speedy dispensation of
    cases JUAN TRAJANO a.k.a. JOHNNY TRAJANO vs. UNIWIDE SALES
    WAREHOUSE CLUB G.R. No. 190253, June 11, 2014, J. Brion
    To determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping, the
    most important factor to ask is whether the elements of litis pendentia are
    present, or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in
    another; otherwise stated, the test for determining forum shopping is whether
    in the two (or more) cases pending, there is identity of parties, rights or causes
    of action, and reliefs sought. In turn, prior judgment or res judicata bars a
    subsequent case when the following requisites concur: (1) the former judgment
    is final; (2) it is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter
    and the parties; (3) it is a judgment or an order on the merits; (4) there is —
    between the first and the second actions — identity of parties, of subject
    matter, and of causes of action. As to the third requisite, it has been settled
    that the dismissal for failure to state a cause of action may very well be
    considered a judgment on the merits and, thereby, operate as res judicata on a
    subsequent case. ABOITIZ EQUITY VENTURES, INC., vs. VICTOR S.
    CHIONGBIAN, BENJAMIN D. GOTHONG, and CARLOS A. GOTHONG LINES,
    INC. (CAGLI) G.R. No.197530, July 9, 2014, J. Leonen
    Sisters Lourdes and Cecilia filed a petition to recover possession of a land.
    However, only Lourdes was the signatory in the verification and certification
    against forum shopping. Norma questioned the propriety of the petition. The
    Court then ruled that where the petitioners are immediate relatives, who share
    a common interest in the property subject of the action, the fact that only one
    of the petitioners executed the verification or certification of forum shopping
    will not deter the court from proceeding with the action. LOURDES C.
    FERNANDEZ vs. NORMA VILLEGAS and any person acting in her behalf
    including her family G.R. No. 200191, August 20, 2014, J. PerlasBernabe

    You might also like