"x x x.
Forum shopping is the institution of two or more actions or proceedings involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. Forum shopping may be resorted to by any party against whom an adverse judgment or order has been issued in one forum, in an attempt to seek a favorable opinion in another, other than by appeal or a special civil action for certiorari. Forum shopping trifles with the courts, abuses their processes, degrades the administration of justice and congest court dockets.[12] What is critical is the vexation brought upon the courts and the litigants by a party who asks different courts to rule on the same or related causes and grant the same or substantially the same reliefs and in the process creates the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issues.[13] Willful and deliberate violation of the rule against forum shopping is a ground for summary dismissal of the case; it may also constitute direct contempt.[14]
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.[15]
Litis pendentia as a ground for the dismissal of a civil action refers to that situation wherein another action is pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, such that the second action becomes unnecessary and vexatious. The underlying principle of litis pendentia is the theory that a party is not allowed to vex another more than once regarding the same subject matter and for the same cause of action. This theory is founded on the public policy that the same subject matter should not be the subject of controversy in courts more than once, in order that possible conflicting judgments may be avoided for the sake of the stability of the rights and status of persons.
The requisites of litis pendentia are: (a) the identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interests in both actions; (b) the identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two cases such that judgment in one,
regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other.[16]
regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other.[16]
The foregoing guided this Court in determining whether Yap is liable for forum shopping for filing a complaint for annulment or discharge of checks following Chua’s filing of a complaint for a sum of money with the two cases allegedly involving the same factual antecedents, issues and arguments. In so doing, this Court agrees with the CA that all the elements of litis pendentia exist and that Yap had indulged in the detestable act of forum shopping, warranting the outright and summary dismissal of Civil Case No. 04-030.
The first requisite of litis pendentia is present as there is identity of parties. The second and third requisites are likewise present. Apart from the fact that the same factual antecedents prompted the filing of the two cases, that Yap ’s defense in Civil Case No. 6236 constitutes his cause of action in Civil Case No. 04-030 necessarily implies reliance on the same evidence for the resolution of both cases.
Hornbook is the rule that identity of causes of action does not mean absolute identity; otherwise, a party could easily escape the operation of res judicata by changing the form of the action or the relief sought. The test to determine whether the causes of action are identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence will sustain both actions, or whether there is an identity in the facts essential to the maintenance of the two actions. If the same facts or evidence would sustain both, the two actions are considered the same, and a judgment in the first case is a bar to the subsequent action. Hence, a party cannot, by varying the form of action or adopting a different method of presenting his case, escape the operation of the principle that one and the same cause of action shall not be twice litigated between the same parties or their privies. Among the several tests resorted to in ascertaining whether two suits relate to a single or common cause of action are: (1) whether the same evidence would support and sustain both the first and second causes of action; and (2) whether the defenses in one case may be used to substantiate thecomplaint in the other.[17] Also fundamental is the test of determining whether the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of the filing of the first complaint.[18]
This Court takes note of the fact that Yap filed his complaint for the annulment of the checks he issued to Chua after he was adjudged by the RTC of General Santos City liable. This strikes the Court as indicative of his deliberate and willful attempt to render nugatory and defeat the adverse decision of the RTC of General Santos City and relieve himself of his obligation to pay by having the checks he issued annulled, albeit the remedy of appeal was available and which he, in fact, resorted to. Chua’s complaint is anchored on the amounts Yap received from her and the RTC of General Santos City decided in her favor on the strength of the checks that Yap issued and endorsed to her. By seeking to cancel or discharge such checks, Yap attempted to use the RTC of Makati City to destroy the evidentiary foundation of the decision of the RTC of General Santos City. In doing so, Yap trifled with court processes and exposed the courts to the possibility of rendering conflicting decisions. Worse, Yap sought to accomplish the prohibited - a court reversing a decision rendered by a court of co-equal rank. Thus, it matters not that the factual findings and conclusions of law of the RTC of General Santos City, the RTC of Makati City, the CA and even of this Court may concur. It is the fact that our judicial system is rendered vulnerable to such uncertainties and vexations that any and all efforts to forum shop should be treated with aversion.
As this Court held in Madara v. Perello:[19]
Other permutations depending on the rulings of the two courts and the timing of these rulings are possible. In every case, our justice system suffers as this kind of sharp practice opens the system to the possibility of manipulation; to uncertainties when conflict of rulings arise; and at least to vexation for complications other than conflict of rulings. Thus, it matters not that ultimately the Court of Appeals may completely agree with the RTC; what the rule on forum shopping addresses are the possibility and the actuality of its harmful effects on our judicial system.[20]
