SPOUSES WILLIAM and JANE JEAN DIU, petitioners, vs. DOMINADOR IBAJAN, DEMETRIA IBAJAN, NELSON C. SY, VICENTE REALINO II and ROMEO R. ALVERO, respondents

SPOUSES WILLIAM and JANE JEAN DIU, petitioners,vs. DOMINADOR IBAJAN, DEMETRIA IBAJAN, NELSON C. SY,VICENTE REALINO II and ROMEO R. ALVERO, respondentsG.R. No. 132657. January 19, 2000322 SCRA 452FACTS: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 court or agency of the government.ISSUE:Whether or not the RTC erred in its appreciation of forum shopping?

Another pertinent Issue:The question of Possession and OwnershipRULING: 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 orwhen 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. 155831February 18, 2008FACTS: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 Employment (DOLE).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 Court.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: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; andidentity 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, i.e., the lowering of the penalty from dismissal to one-year suspension.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