SPOUSES WILLIAM AND JANE

JEAN DIU, PETITIONERS,

VS.
DOMINADOR IBAJAN, DEMETRIA
IBAJAN, NELSON C. SY,
VICENTE REALINO II AND
ROMEO R. ALVERO,
RESPONDENTS

G.R. No. 132657. January 19, 2000

322 SCRA 452

FACTS:

Sps Carmelito Ibajan and

Finna Josep-Ibajan, joined by
Dominador and Demetria
Ibajan, filed against William
Diu and the Register of Deeds
an action for the annulment
of certain deeds of sale with
a prayer for a writ of
preliminary injunction.

FACTS:

Carmelito Ibajan and Finna

Josep-Ibajan claimed to be the
owners of the parcel of land,
while Dominador and Demetria
Ibajan, upon the other hand,
asserted to be the owners of
the building, partly commercial
and partly residential, erected
thereon.

FACTS:

The
plaintiffs
averred
that
defendant Diu had caused
Carmelito Ibajan to sign a
document, supposed to be a
deed of real estate mortgage
covering the aforesaid lot but
which turned out to be a deed of
absolute sale.

FACTS:

Diu,
had
caused
the
execution of a deed of
absolute
sale
over
the
residential and commercial
building
by
forging
the
signature
of
Dominador
Ibajan.

FACTS:

Shortly following, William and

Jane Jean Diu commenced an
action for forcible entry with
damages
before
the
Municipal Trial Court against
Dominador Ibajan, Demetria
Ibajan, Nelson C. Sy, Vicente
Realino II and Romeo Alvero.

FACTS:

The plaintiffs in the ejectment suit

alleged that the spouses Ibajan,
aided by the other defendants who
falsely represented themselves to
be agents of the National Bureau
of Investigation, unlawfully entered
his property, took possession
thereof
and
ejected
their
employees therefrom.

FACTS:

In a decision the MTC ruled in

favor of plaintiffs and against
the defendants.
In another order, the court then
caused the elevation of the
records of the case to the RTC.
The presiding Judge then directed
the consolidation of Civil Cases.

FACTS:

Then
after
meticulously
peruse the entire record of
this case. It noted that both
plaintiffs and defendants in
their
verification
and
certification
on
forum
shopping did allege that
there is no pending similar
action pending in any other

ISSUE:

Whether or not the RTC

erred in its appreciation
of forum shopping?
Another pertinent Issue:
The question of Possession
and Ownership

RULING:
Yes, the Court agrees with
the petitioners that the RTC
erred in its appreciation of
forum shopping.

RULING:
The Court has said that there is forum-shopping

when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one

forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other
than by appeal or certiorari) in another or
when he repetitively avails himself of several
judicial
remedies
in
different
courts,
simultaneously or successively,
All substantially founded on the same
transactions and the same essential facts and
circumstances, and all raising substantially the
same issues either pending in, or already resolved
adversely by, some other court.

RULING:
In the case at bar, the two
cases, one for the annulment
of deeds of sale and the other
for
ejectment
although
concerning the same property,
are distinct litigations, neither
involving exactly the same
parties nor identical issues.

MA. LOURDES T.
DOMINGO,
PETITIONER,
VS.
ROGELIO I. RAYALA,
RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 155831
February 18, 2008

FACTS:

Three Petitions for Review on

Certiorari
assailing
the
Resolution of a CAs Division,
which affirmed the Decision of
the Office of the President,
dismissing from the service
then National Labor Relations
Commission Chairman Rogelio
I. Rayala for disgraceful and
immoral conduct.

FACTS:

All three petitions stem from the

same factual antecedents.
That on November 16, 1998, Ma.
Lourdes T. Domingo (Domingo),
then Stenographic Reporter III at
the NLRC, filed a Complaint for
sexual
harassment
against
Rayala
before
Secretary
Bienvenido Laguesma of the
Department
of
Labor
and

FACTS:

On appeal Rayala accuses

the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG), as counsel for
the
Republic,
of
forum
shopping because it filed a
motion for reconsideration of
the decision of CA and then
filed a comment on one of
the case before the Supreme

ISSUE:

Whether or not the

OSG committed forum
shopping?

RULING:
No,

the Court did not agree.

Forum shopping is an act of a party,

against whom an adverse judgment or order
has been rendered in one forum, of seeking
and possibly securing a favorable opinion in
another forum, other than by appeal or
special civil action for certiorari. It consists
of filing multiple suits involving the same
parties for the same cause of action, either
simultaneously or successively, for the
purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment.

RULING:

There is forum shopping when the following

ELEMENTS concur:

(1)

(2)

(3)

identity of the parties or, at least, of the

parties who represent the same interest in
both actions;
identity of the rights asserted and relief
prayed for, as the latter is founded on the
same set of facts; and
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.

RULING:
Based on the foregoing, it
cannot be said that the OSG is
guilty of forum shopping. It was
Rayala who filed the petition in
the CA, with the Republic as the
adverse party. Rayala himself
filed
a
motion
for
reconsideration of the CAs
December 21, 2001 Decision,
which led to a more favorable

RULING:
The parties adversely affected
by this ruling had the right to
question the same on motion for
reconsideration. But Domingo
directly filed a Petition for
Review with this Court, as did
Rayala. When the Republic opted
to
file
a
motion
for
reconsideration, it was merely
exercising a right.

RULING:
When Rayala and Domingo had
by then already filed cases before
the SC, it did not take away this
right. Thus, when this Court
directed the Republic to file its
Comment on Rayalas petition, it
had to comply, even if it had an
unresolved
motion
for
reconsideration with the CA, lest
it be cited for contempt.

FINE