Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping

To determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping, the test applied
is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present or whether a final judgment in one
case will amount to res judicata in another.1
Violation of the rule on forum shopping should be raised at the earliest opportunity in a
motion to dismiss or a similar pleading. Invoking it in the later stages of the proceedings or
on appeal may result in the dismissal of the action as an exception only if the violation arises
from or will result in (1) the loss of jurisdiction over the subject matter, (2) the pendency of
another action between the same parties for the same cause, (3) the barring of the action by
a prior judgment, or (4) the crossing of the Statute of Limitations.
Elements of Litis Pendentia
Litis pendentia refers to a situation where two actions are pending between the same parties
for the same cause of action, so that one of them becomes unnecessary and vexatious.
Litis pendentia exists when the following requisites are present: identity of the parties in the
two actions; substantial identity in the causes of action and in the reliefs sought by the
parties; and the identity between the two actions should be such that any judgment that
may be rendered in one case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res
judicata in the other. 2
Discussion:
Even after an answer has been filed, the Court has allowed a defendant to file a motion to
dismiss on the following grounds: (1) lack of jurisdiction, 22 (2) litis pendentia,23 (3) lack of
cause of action,24 and (4) discovery during trial of evidence that would constitute a ground
for dismissal.25 Except for lack of cause of action or lack of jurisdiction, the grounds under
Section 1 of Rule 16 may be waived. If a particular ground for dismissal is not raised or if no
motion to dismiss is filed at all within the reglementary period, it is generally considered
waived under Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules. 3
Court invokes the following principles: (1) a lawyer's standing in a case remains, until a
substitute takes over pursuant to Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court; (2) a trial court
may act upon a motion to dismiss at any time a ground therefor becomes available, even
after a responsive pleading to the complaint has already been filed; (3) a civil case initiated
by an estate administrator may be dismissed upon a showing that the said administrator's
appointment as such has been revoked by the probate court; and (4) the dismissal of an
action may be made after the ground therefor becomes known, even if the trial court has
refused to do so earlier when that ground was not yet available. 4

1 Umale vs Canoga Park Development Corp. (G.R No. 167246)

2 Umale vs Canoga Park Development Corp. (G.R No. 167246
3 Obando vs Amigo Realty Corp (G.R No. 134854)

4 Obando vs Amigo Realty Corp (G.R No. 134854)