Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Second. Petitioner contends that respondent UP is guilty of forum shopping since, after having filed the
petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, it subsequently filed a motion in the trial court seeking
reconsideration of its January 22, 1999 decision.
Again the contention has no merit. There is forum shopping when, as between two or more actions, there is
identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in the actions, as well as identity
of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts, and the identity on the
two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other action, will, regardless of which
party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration (Buan v. Lopez, 145 SCRA 34
(1986)). In this case, there is no identity of rights asserted in the petition for certiorari and in the motion for
reconsideration of respondent UP because the petition for certiorari was directed against the trial court's lack
of impartiality and of its failure to afford due process to respondent UP. The motion for reconsideration, on
the other hand, was filed to correct the errors of the trial court in the determination of the merits of the
case. Indeed, it was only after Judge Santiago had retired and a new judge had been appointed to Branch
101, that respondent UP filed its motion for reconsideration.
Third. Petitioner also contends that the Court of Appeals is guilty of "inconsistent adjudication" since it took
cognizance both of the petition for certiorari of respondent UP and of the appeal filed by the OSG.
This claim is untenable. The appellate court cannot be faulted for giving due course to the OSG's appeal
considering that at the time it filed such, a decision had yet to be promulgated in respondent UP's petition,
which, as already stated, sought the annulment of the orders and decision of the trial court on the ground of
grave abuse of discretion, manifest bias and denial of due process. The effect of the decision of the Court of
Appeals annulling the January 22, 1999 decision of the trial court is to render moot the pending appeal filed
by the Solicitor General.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court RESOLVED to deny the petition for lack of showing that the Court of
Appeals committed a reversible error.
Very truly yours.