Forum Shopping in the Philippines

Generated: 2026-07-03 | Intellegal Deep Research

Answer Summary

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 render a favorable disposition. It is an act of malpractice that trifles with the courts, abuses their processes, degrades the administration of justice, and congests court dockets. Its recognized forms include litis pendentia (another action pending between the same parties for the same cause), res judicata (a prior final judgment barring relitigation), and the impermissible splitting of a single cause of action into multiple suits. The Rules of Court, as amended by the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC), codify the prohibition and require a sworn certification against forum shopping in every initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief. Willful and deliberate forum shopping results in summary dismissal of the case with prejudice and constitutes direct contempt of court, while a defective certification or non-compliance with the undertakings therein leads to dismissal without prejudice and indirect contempt, alongside potential administrative and criminal sanctions.

The governing provision is Rule 7, Section 5 of the 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure, which mandates that the plaintiff or principal party certify under oath that no other action involving the same issues is pending, disclose any pending action, and undertake to report any subsequently discovered similar action within five (5) calendar days. The authorization of the affiant (e.g., a secretary’s certificate or special power of attorney) must be attached to the pleading. The leading cases establishing the controlling doctrine are Mekatrade Asia Pte. Ltd. v. Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer Corporation, G.R. No. 226173, 6 October 2021 (Third Division), for the elements and consequences of deliberate forum shopping, and Jesse Yap v. Eliza Chua, G.R. No. 186730, 13 June 2012 (First Division), for the test of forum shopping through litis pendentia and the rule that a party cannot split a cause of action.

For a violation to exist, three elements must concur: (1) identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interests in both actions; (2) substantial identity in the causes of action and reliefs sought, anchored on the same set of facts; and (3) the identity of the two actions is such that a judgment in one would, regardless of which party succeeds, amount to res judicata in the other. The same test determines whether litis pendentia is present. A single cause of action cannot be split; if multiple suits are instituted on the same delict, the filing of one or a judgment on the merits in any one is a ground for dismissal of the others.

Common failure points include: the certification being signed by counsel instead of the party or a duly authorized corporate officer (Digital Microwave Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128550, 16 March 2000); lack of proof of the signatory’s authority when acting on behalf of a corporation (Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. FASAP, G.R. No. 143088, 24 January 2006); failure of all named petitioners to sign the certification when they do not share a common interest or one is not authorized to represent the others (Nellie Vda. de Formoso v. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 154704, 1 June 2011); omission to disclose a pending related case in the certification, even if it was dismissed without prejudice (Spouses Arevalo v. Planters Development Bank, G.R. No. 193415, 24 January 2018); and splitting a cause of action by filing separate complaints for injunction and damages arising from the same act (Fidel O. Chua v. Metrobank, G.R. No. 182311, 19 August 2009).

The current legal regime is governed by A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC, effective 1 May 2020, which amended the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The 2019 amendments explicitly require the attachment of the affiant’s authorization, use “calendar days” for the reporting period, and retain the graduated sanctions for non-compliance and willful forum shopping. Based on comprehensive database and web research, no Supreme Court rulings from 2024–2026 were found that alter the existing doctrine; the most recent authority addressing the core principles is Quiambao v. Sumbilla, G.R. Nos. 192901 & 192903, 1 February 2023, and Rene Manuel R. Jose v. Elizabeth Quesada-Jose, G.R. No. 249434, 15 March 2023.

Section I — Issue Overview

1. What constitutes forum shopping, including its forms of litis pendentia, res judicata, and splitting a cause of action? — This issue addresses the legal definition of forum shopping, the doctrinal elements that must be established for its existence, and how courts distinguish between legitimate pursuit of separate remedies and impermissible splitting of a single cause of action. The precise contours determine when a second action must be dismissed and when parallel proceedings are permitted.

2. What are the requirements for a valid certification against forum shopping under the Rules of Court and relevant jurisprudence? — This issue concerns the formal and substantive prerequisites of the sworn certification that must accompany an initiatory pleading, including who must execute it, the content required, the proof of authority needed, and the consequences of defects.

3. What are the consequences of violating the prohibition on forum shopping, including dismissal and contempt? — This issue covers the range of sanctions available to the courts when the rule is breached, from the effect on the offending pleading and the action itself to the personal liability of parties and counsel through contempt and administrative discipline.

Section II — Legal Analysis

Issue 1: Definition and Forms of Forum Shopping — Litis Pendentia, Res Judicata, and Splitting a Cause of Action

Applicable Laws & Issuances

Rule 2, Sections 3 and 4, Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC, establishes the fundamental rule: “A party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action.” If two or more suits are filed on the basis of the same cause of action, “the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others.” A cause of action is defined as the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another (Section 2).

Rule 6, Section 5(b), Rules of Court, enumerates as affirmative defenses “that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment,” which correspond to the doctrines of litis pendentia and res judicata, respectively. These may be raised in a motion to dismiss or in the answer.

Rule 9, Section 1 states that when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment, “the court shall dismiss the claim.”

These provisions codify the substantive prohibition against forum shopping and its procedural mechanisms, but the full definition and tests have been developed extensively by the Supreme Court.

Case Law Analysis

Doctrinal Synthesis

The Supreme Court has consistently defined forum shopping as “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 expectation that one or the other court would render a favorable disposition.” Mekatrade, G.R. No. 226173. It “trifles with the courts, abuses their processes, degrades the administration of justice and adds to the already congested court dockets.” Yap, G.R. No. 186730. Forum shopping may manifest in several forms: filing multiple actions while another is pending (litis pendentia), relitigating a cause already decided by a final judgment (res judicata), or splitting a single cause of action into two or more suits.

The Three-Element Test. The test for forum shopping is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. These elements, consistently recited from Sapul (G.R. No. L-14091, 1959) through Mekatrade (2021), are:

1. Identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interests in both actions;
2. Substantial identity in the causes of action and reliefs sought, the relief being founded on the same facts; and
3. The identity of the two cases such that any judgment rendered in one, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other.

Absolute identity of parties is not required; substantial identity, where the same interests are represented, suffices. Jose, G.R. No. 249434 (2023). The test for identity of causes of action is whether the same evidence would sustain both actions. Yap, G.R. No. 186730; Dasmariñas Village, G.R. No. 127276. “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.” Yap.

Litis Pendentia (Pending Action). Litis pendentia requires that another action is actually pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, so that one of them becomes unnecessary and vexatious. The same three-element test applies. When the requisites are met, the general rule is that the action filed later should be abated to avoid multiplicity of suits, based on the maxim qui prior est tempore, potior est jure (he who is before in time is the better in right). Pacsports, G.R. No. 141602 (2001); Isla LPG, G.R. No. 220262 (2019). Exceptions to this priority rule exist: (a) if the first action was filed merely to pre-empt the later action, or (b) if the first action is not the more appropriate vehicle for litigating the issues. Isla LPG, citing Benavidez v. Salvador. Where the cause of action in the second case did not yet exist when the first was filed, litis pendentia cannot obtain. Umale, G.R. No. 167246 (2011). Similarly, if the two actions involve different causes of action—e.g., one for damages based on tort and another for estate administration—the requisites are absent. Atienza v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85455, 1994; Quito v. Stop & Save Corp., G.R. No. 186657, 2014.

Res Judicata (Prior Judgment). When a prior final judgment on the merits exists, the second action is barred not merely because it is pending but because the matter has been conclusively decided. Res judicata encompasses both “bar by prior judgment” (the same cause of action) and “conclusiveness of judgment” (the same issues). In Sy, G.R. No. 242869 (2019), the Court held that dismissal of the first complaint with prejudice operated as an adjudication on the merits, barring a second complaint based on the same cause. In Reyes, G.R. No. 153936 (2007), repeated challenges to an already final execution order were held barred by res judicata and constituted forum shopping.

Splitting a Cause of Action. Splitting a single cause of action consists in the practice of instituting two or more suits on the basis of the same cause of action. Under Rule 2, Section 4, if two or more suits are so instituted, the filing of one or a judgment on the merits in any one is a ground for dismissal of the others. The critical inquiry is whether the two complaints arise from a single delict or wrongful act; if they do, it is impermissible to file multiple cases seeking different reliefs. ABS-CBN, G.R. No. 201664 (2019), held that where only one wrongful act—a talent’s refusal to honor his contract—gave rise to all claims, the filing of separate cases for different reliefs amounted to forum shopping. Chua v. Metrobank, G.R. No. 182311 (2009), similarly found that filing separate actions for nullification of a foreclosure sale and for damages arising from the same sale constituted impermissible splitting. In Silverio, G.R. Nos. 184079 & 184490 (2013), the filing of two unlawful detainer cases covering different portions of the same lot, based on a single claim of ownership, was held to be splitting a cause of action.

When No Forum Shopping Exists. Forum shopping does not arise when the actions involve different causes of action, different subject matter, or independent transactions. In Ayala Land, Inc. v. Valisno, G.R. No. 135899 (2000), five quiet title actions involving separate titles and different parcels of land were held not to constitute forum shopping because the causes of action were distinct. In Santos v. Parañaque Kings Enterprises, Inc., G.R. No. 143562 (2006), two certiorari petitions assailing different orders of the trial court were deemed to involve different causes of action and transactions, negating forum shopping. Filing multiple cases will also not be considered forum shopping if the first case was dismissed without prejudice and no res judicata or litis pendentia effect attaches, Sps. Cruz v. Sps. Caraos, G.R. No. 138208 (2007), or if the party acted in good faith without intent to multiply proceedings, Daswani v. BDO Universal Bank, G.R. No. 190983 (2015).

Willful vs. Non-Willful Forum Shopping. The Supreme Court distinguishes between a deliberate, strategic effort to obtain a favorable ruling from a different court and a technical misstep. Willful forum shopping is characterized by the intentional concealment of a pending action or the filing of a new action after an adverse ruling in a prior one, indicative of bad faith. Yap, G.R. No. 186730; Mekatrade, G.R. No. 226173. Non-willful violations, such as the failure to disclose a previously dismissed case that does not give rise to res judicata, may be treated less severely—the complaint may be dismissed without prejudice or the defect may be curable. Chua, G.R. No. 182311 (dismissal without prejudice where petitioners themselves moved to consolidate, indicating good faith).

Recent Developments

The 2019 procedural amendments did not alter the substantive test for forum shopping; they merely refined the certification requirements. The most recent rulings reiterating the core elements are Quiambao v. Sumbilla, G.R. Nos. 192901 & 192903, 1 February 2023 (withdrawal of the other cases before any responsive pleading negates forum shopping), available through lawphil, and Jose, G.R. No. 249434 (15 March 2023). No Supreme Court rulings from 2024–2026 were identified that modify the prevailing definition or forms of forum shopping.

Issue 2: Certification Against Forum Shopping — Requirements Under the Rules of Court and Jurisprudence

Applicable Laws & Issuances

Rule 7, Section 5, Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC, provides:

The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he [or she] has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his [or her] knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he [or she] should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he [or she] shall report that fact within five (5) calendar days therefrom to the court wherein his [or her] aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.

The authorization of the affiant to act on behalf of a party, whether in the form of a secretary’s certificate or a special power of attorney, should be attached to the pleading.

Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing.

Case Law Analysis

Doctrinal Synthesis

The certification against forum shopping is a mandatory requirement that must accompany every initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief. Its purpose is to compel the party to declare under oath whether there are other pending actions involving the same issues, thereby curbing the pernicious practice of forum shopping. The 2019 amendments codified and strengthened existing jurisprudence.

Who Must Sign. The certification must be executed by the plaintiff or principal party personally, not by counsel. Digital Microwave, G.R. No. 128550 (2000) (counsel’s signature invalid because only the party has actual knowledge of similar pending actions); Republic v. Carmel Development, G.R. No. 142572 (2002) (retained counsel’s signature rendered complaint fatally defective). For corporations, the signatory must be a duly authorized officer or agent; a secretary’s certificate or board resolution evidencing such authority must be attached to the pleading. PAL, G.R. No. 143088 (2006) (authorization granted only after the petition was filed cannot cure the defect); Fuentebella, G.R. No. 150865 (2006) (a person signing on behalf of a corporation without proper authority renders the certification defective). The 2019 rule now explicitly requires: “The authorization of the affiant to act on behalf of a party, whether in the form of a secretary’s certificate or a special power of attorney, should be attached to the pleading.”

Multiple Petitioners. When there are multiple petitioners or plaintiffs, all must sign the certification, unless they share a common interest and the one signing can speak on behalf of all. Formoso, G.R. No. 154704 (2011) held that where one signatory among several petitioners had no common interest with the others and no authority to represent them, the petition was defective. Reasonable circumstances, such as family members sharing a common cause of action, may permit substantial compliance. Ateneo de Naga, G.R. No. 160455 (2005) (signature of one authorized officer on behalf of all petitioners acceptable where authority documents were subsequently provided).

Content of the Certification. Subparagraphs (a), (b), and (c) of Rule 7, Section 5 must be strictly complied with. The party must state that no other action involving the same issues has been commenced or is pending; if there is any pending action, a complete statement of its status must be provided; and the party undertakes to report any subsequently discovered similar action within five (5) calendar days. Omissions of withdrawn or dismissed cases that do not create res judicata or litis pendentia are not necessarily fatal, as substantial compliance may be recognized. Fuentebella, G.R. No. 150865; Roxas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139337 (2001) (non-disclosure of a case dismissed without prejudice not fatal). However, a deliberate failure to disclose a pending related case will render the certification false and subject the party to sanctions.

Not Curable by Amendment. The rule is explicit: “Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading.” Late filing of the certification will not save the pleading; the case must be dismissed without prejudice. Cordova, G.R. No. 135711 (2007) (certification submitted five days after the complaint was held fatal). The lack of a certification is a jurisdictional defect that cannot be waived, and the court may motu proprio dismiss the action.

Excepted Pleadings. The certification requirement applies only to initiatory pleadings asserting a claim for relief. Counterclaims, whether compulsory or permissive, do not require a certification because they are not initiatory. Carpio, G.R. No. 153171 (2006). Ex parte petitions for a writ of possession following a foreclosure sale are not initiatory pleadings and likewise need no certification. De Guzman, G.R. No. 195445 (2016).

Recent Developments

The 2019 Amendments (A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC) introduced the explicit requirement that the authorization of the affiant be attached to the pleading, resolving prior inconsistencies in jurisprudence on whether subsequent submission of a secretary’s certificate could cure the defect. The period within which a party must report a subsequently discovered action was changed to “five (5) calendar days,” removing ambiguities in counting. The Supreme Court in G.R. No. 247490 (2022), available through lawphil, reiterated that the certification must be signed by all plaintiffs or petitioners, and that a special power of attorney is required when counsel signs for a party who is unable to do so. No further legislative or high court rulings from 2024–2026 were found.

Issue 3: Consequences of Violating the Prohibition on Forum Shopping — Dismissal and Contempt

Applicable Laws & Issuances

Rule 7, Section 5 (last paragraph) provides the graduated sanctions:

Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his [or her] counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.

Rule 9, Section 1 reinforces that when it appears from the record that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause or that the action is barred by a prior judgment, the court shall dismiss the claim.

Case Law Analysis

Doctrinal Synthesis

The consequences of violating the prohibition on forum shopping are calibrated according to the gravity of the offense.

A. Dismissal Without Prejudice for Defective Certification. Where the certification is missing or fails to comply with the formal requirements—such as being signed by counsel rather than the party, lacking proper authorization, or being filed late—the sanction is dismissal of the case without prejudice. This is the remedy for a procedural lapse not accompanied by a deliberate attempt to mislead the court or multiply proceedings. Melo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123686 (1999); Cordova, G.R. No. 135711 (2007). The dismissal is “without prejudice,” meaning the case may be refiled once the defect is cured, provided the substantive cause of action is not barred by prescription or other grounds.

B. Summary Dismissal With Prejudice for Willful and Deliberate Forum Shopping. When the act of forum shopping is willful and deliberate—characterized by an intent to trifle with the courts, such as filing a second action after an adverse ruling or concealing a pending action—the penalty is summary dismissal of the case with prejudice. Mekatrade, G.R. No. 226173 (2021) (CA petition dismissed on ground of deliberate forum shopping); Yap, G.R. No. 186730 (2012) (dismissal of second complaint for violation of forum shopping rule); Fil-Estate, G.R. No. 120958 (1996) (both duplicate injunction actions ordered dismissed). A dismissal with prejudice operates as an adjudication on the merits and bars future actions on the same cause. Sy, G.R. No. 242869 (2019).

C. Contempt of Court. The rule establishes two tiers of contempt:

• Indirect contempt is triggered by the submission of a false certification or non-compliance with the undertakings therein, such as the failure to report a subsequently filed similar action within five (5) days. Fuentebella, G.R. No. 150865; Arevalo, G.R. No. 193415 (P10,000 fine for indirect contempt). The penalty for indirect contempt is governed by Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, which allows a fine not exceeding P30,000 or imprisonment, or both.
• Direct contempt arises when the willful and deliberate nature of the forum shopping is patent, i.e., the party or counsel commits the malpractice in the face of the court through the filings. Mekatrade, G.R. No. 226173 (party and counsel ordered to show cause why they should not be cited for direct contempt); Gatmaytan, G.R. No. 123332 (1997) (P5,000 fine for direct contempt and six-month suspension from law practice for repeated forum shopping); Arevalo, G.R. No. 193415 (P2,000 fine for direct contempt).

D. Administrative and Criminal Sanctions. The rule explicitly states that the contempt sanctions are “without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions.” Lawyers who engage in forum shopping may be administratively disciplined for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, including suspension or disbarment. Court of Appeals v. Tarroza, A.C. No. 7037 (2015) (one-month suspension for forum shopping); Gatmaytan, G.R. No. 123332 (six-month suspension). The party may also face criminal prosecution for perjury if the false certification meets the elements of that offense.

E. The Evil of Conflicting Decisions. The ultimate harm sought to be avoided is the risk of contradictory judgments from coordinate courts. In Mekatrade, the very evil materialized: “the CA and the RTC have in fact rendered contradictory findings,” which underscored the necessity of the rule. When forum shopping is found, the later action is typically the one dismissed, consistent with the priority rule, unless equitable considerations dictate otherwise. If both actions are before the same court, consolidation may be ordered rather than dismissal, particularly where no willful intent is shown. Chua, G.R. No. 182311 (dismissal without prejudice where parties voluntarily moved to consolidate).

Recent Developments

The 2019 amendments maintained the same penalties, clarifying that non-compliance with the undertaking to report a subsequently discovered action constitutes indirect contempt, and that willful and deliberate forum shopping constitutes direct contempt. In Zosa v. Yruma, A.C. No. 12360 (2023), the Court reiterated the consequences but dismissed the complaint for lack of substantial evidence. No rulings from 2024–2026 were found that modify the range of sanctions.

Section III — Action Plan & Evidence Guide

Recommended Strategy: Any attorney filing an initiatory pleading must first conduct a comprehensive conflict check across all courts, tribunals, and quasi-judicial agencies to identify all pending or decided actions involving the same parties and the same or related issues. The certification against forum shopping must be prepared with precision and signed by the party (or a duly authorized representative) with actual knowledge of the facts. Counsel should ensure that all requirements are met at the time of filing, as subsequent amendments cannot cure a defective or absent certification.

Action Steps:

1. Perform a thorough case inventory — Before drafting the initiatory pleading, interview the client extensively about any other legal actions they have commenced, filed, or caused to be filed, whether in civil, criminal, administrative, or quasi-judicial fora, that involve substantially the same facts or issues. Request certified true copies of all pertinent complaints and decisions.
2. Secure proper authorization — If the party is a juridical entity, obtain a board resolution or secretary’s certificate expressly authorizing the named individual to sign the verification and certification on behalf of the entity. For multiple plaintiffs, ensure either all sign personally or one is specifically authorized via a special power of attorney; verify that common interest exists if one will sign for all.
3. Draft the certification accurately — Disclose every pending related action with a complete statement of its current status (court, docket number, stage of proceedings, reliefs sought). If none, state so categorically. Include the binding undertaking to report any subsequently discovered action within five (5) calendar days.
4. Monitor and report — After filing, instruct the client to immediately inform counsel of any new filing or discovery of a related action. File a manifestation with the court within the prescribed period to comply with the undertaking.
5. Respond promptly to motion to dismiss — If an opposing party moves to dismiss on forum shopping grounds, gather all relevant pleadings and orders from the other action(s) to demonstrate either the absence of identity of causes of action or that any omission was inadvertent and not willful.

Evidence Checklist:

• Secretary’s Certificate or Board Resolution — proves the corporate signatory’s authority; must be attached to the pleading. Obtain from the corporate secretary.
• Special Power of Attorney — proves authority when one individual signs on behalf of another party. Notarized and attached.
• Certified true copies of complaints and dispositive orders from other courts/agencies — used to compare causes of action, parties, and reliefs; obtained from the relevant courts.
• Certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court or docket search results — demonstrates the absence of pending cases; may be obtained if the client’s recollection is uncertain.
• Affidavit of the client detailing all known legal actions — corroborates the information in the certification and can be used to rebut allegations of bad faith.
• Manifestation/Report of subsequently discovered action — template to be filed within five calendar days of knowledge; should include the case number, court, and status of the new action.

⚠️ This is AI-generated legal research for reference only. It does not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed Philippine attorney before making important legal decisions.

References

Legislation & Regulatory Issuances

• 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC)
• 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure as Amended (Rules 1-71, Rules of Court)
• Rules of Court

Case Law

• MEKATRADE ASIA PTE. LTD., petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER CORPORATION, respondent, G.R. No. 226173 — Mekatrade (06 October 2021)
• JESSE YAP, petitioner, vs. ELIZA CHUA and EVELYN TE, respondents, G.R. No. 186730 — CA petition dismissed on ground of deliberate forum shopping); Yap (13 June 2012)
• DASMARIÑAS VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, et al., respondents, G.R. No. 127276 (03 December 1998)
• RENE MANUEL R. JOSE, petitioner, vs. ELIZABETH QUESADA-JOSE, et al., respondents, G.R. No. 249434 — Rene Manuel R. Jose v. Elizabeth Quesada-Jose (15 March 2023)
• PACSPORTS PHILS., INC., petitioner, vs. NICCOLO SPORTS, INC., respondent, G.R. No. 141602 — Pacsports (22 November 2001)
• ISLA LPG CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. LEYTE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., respondent, G.R. No. 220262 — Isla LPG (28 August 2019)
• ABS-CBN CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. ABC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL., respondent, G.R. No. 201664 — Abs-Cbn Corporation v. Abc Development Corporation (16 October 2019)
• FIDEL O. CHUA and FILIDEN REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, et al., respondents, G.R. No. 182311 (19 August 2009)
• SPS. ARMANDO SILVERIO, SR. AND REMEDIOS SILVERIO vs. SPS. RICARDO AND EVELYN MARCELO, G.R. Nos. 184079 & 184490 — Sps. Armando Silverio, Sr. v. Sps. Ricardo (17 April 2013)
• FIL-ESTATE GOLF AND DEVELOPMENT, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et al., respondents, G.R. No. 120958 — Fil-Estate (16 December 1996)
• AMADEO SAPUL, petitioner-appellant, vs. JUDGE ESTEBAN S. SIVA, et al., respondents-appellees, G.R. No. L-14091 — AMADEO SAPUL petitioner-appellant vs. JUDGE ESTEBAN S. SIVA et al. respondents-appellees (25 August 1959)
• SPOUSES ROMAN G. SY AND HELEN S. TIU-SY vs. SIAN SUAT NGO, et al., G.R. No. 242869 — Spouses Roman G. Sy v. Sian Suat Ngo (21 January 2019)
• BERNARDO S. ZAMORA, petitioner, vs. EMMANUEL Z. QUINAN, JR., et al., respondents, G.R. No. 216139 — Bernardo S. Zamora v. Emmanuel Z. Quinan, Jr. (29 November 2017)
• GEORGE LEONARD S. UMALE, petitioner, vs. CANOGA PARK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondent, G.R. No. 167246 — George Leonard S. Umale v. Canoga Park Development Corporation (20 July 2011)
• DIGITAL MICROWAVE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et al., respondents, G.R. No. 128550 — Digital Microwave (16 March 2000)
• PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., et al., petitioners, vs. FLIGHT ATTENDANTS AND STEWARDS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, et al., respondents, G.R. No. 143088 (24 January 2006)
• ART FUENTEBELLA, et al., petitioners, vs. DARLICA CASTRO, respondent, G.R. No. 150865 — Fuentebella (30 June 2006)
• NELLIE VDA. DE FORMOSO, et al., petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, et al., respondents, G.R. No. 154704 — Formoso (01 June 2011)
• REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, et al. vs. CARMEL DEVELOPMENT, INC., G.R. No. 142572 — Republic of the Philippines Represented By the Department of Education v. Carmel Development (20 February 2002)
• LDP MARKETING, INC., et al., petitioners, vs. ERLINDA DYOLDE MONTER, respondent, G.R. No. 159653 — Ldp Marketing v. Erlinda Dyolde Monter (25 January 2006)
• ATENEO DE NAGA UNIVERSITY, et al., petitioners, vs. JOVITA S. MANALO, respondent, G.R. No. 160455 — Ateneo de Naga (09 May 2005)
• SPOUSES RODOLFO CARPIO and REMEDIOS ORENDAIN vs. RURAL BANK OF STO. TOMAS (BATANGAS), INC., G.R. No. 153171 — Spouses Rodolfo Carpio v. Rural Bank of Sto. Tomas (Batangas) (04 May 2006)
• ANGELINA DE GUZMAN, et al., petitioners, vs. GLORIA A. CHICO, respondent, G.R. No. 195445 — De Guzman (07 December 2016)
• MARIBETH CORDOVA, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, et al., respondents, G.R. No. 135711 — Cordova (02 August 2007)
• AUGUSTO GATMAYTAN, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et al., respondents, G.R. No. 123332 — A.C. No. 7037 (2015) (one-month suspension for forum shopping); Gatmaytan (03 February 1997)
• SPOUSES DAISY AND SOCRATES M. AREVALO vs. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK, et al., G.R. No. 193415 — Arevalo (24 January 2018)
• REQUEST FOR CONSOLIDATION OF CIVIL CASE NO. R-1692, et al., A.M. No. 00-7-299-RTC (31 August 2001)
• ORTIGAS & COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, petitioner, vs. JUDGE TIRSO VELASCO, et al., G.R. Nos. 109645, 112564, 128422, 128911 — Ortigas & Company Limited Partnership v. Judge Tirso Velasco (21 January 2015)
• Fritz Ramirez Zosa v. Atty. Albert P. Yruma, A.C. No. 12360 (08 February 2023)
• Quiambao v. Sumbilla, G.R. Nos. 192901 & 192903 (01 February 2023)
• G.R. No. 247490 (March 2022) — Ma. Luisa Annabelle A. Torres v. Republic of the Philippines