Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 419 views

    Roxas Vs Court of Appeals Case Digest LEGAL ETHICS

    Uploaded by

    Coleen
    1) Petitioner Ma. Carminia Roxas filed for nullity of marriage against her husband and for support of their children. She later filed to dismiss the complaint without prejudice before it was served. 2) Petitioner re-filed the complaint. The trial court ordered the husband to pay support and held him in contempt for failing to pay. The husband appealed. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner was not guilty of forum shopping as there was no litis pendencia or res judicata since the first case was dismissed without prejudice. It reversed the Court of Appeals' decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Roxas Vs Court of Appeals Case Digest LEGAL ETHICS

    Uploaded by

    Coleen
    419 views1 page
    1) Petitioner Ma. Carminia Roxas filed for nullity of marriage against her husband and for support of their children. She later filed to dismiss the complaint without prejudice before it was served. 2) Petitioner re-filed the complaint. The trial court ordered the husband to pay support and held him in contempt for failing to pay. The husband appealed. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner was not guilty of forum shopping as there was no litis pendencia or res judicata since the first case was dismissed without prejudice. It reversed the Court of Appeals' decision.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Roxas vs Court of Appeals Case Digest LEGAL ETHICS

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Petitioner Ma. Carminia Roxas filed for nullity of marriage against her husband and for support of their children. She later filed to dismiss the complaint without prejudice before it was served. 2) Petitioner re-filed the complaint. The trial court ordered the husband to pay support and held him in contempt for failing to pay. The husband appealed. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner was not guilty of forum shopping as there was no litis pendencia or res judicata since the first case was dismissed without prejudice. It reversed the Court of Appeals' decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    419 views1 page

    Roxas Vs Court of Appeals Case Digest LEGAL ETHICS

    Uploaded by

    Coleen
    1) Petitioner Ma. Carminia Roxas filed for nullity of marriage against her husband and for support of their children. She later filed to dismiss the complaint without prejudice before it was served. 2) Petitioner re-filed the complaint. The trial court ordered the husband to pay support and held him in contempt for failing to pay. The husband appealed. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner was not guilty of forum shopping as there was no litis pendencia or res judicata since the first case was dismissed without prejudice. It reversed the Court of Appeals' decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Roxas vs.

    Court of Appeals
    G.R. No. 139337
    August 15, 2001

    Facts: Petitioner Ma. Carminia Roxas filed an action for declaration of nullity of marriage
    against her husband, private respondent Jose Antonio Roxas, with an application for
    support pendente lite for their children. The petitioner, soon thereafter, filed a notice to
    dismiss the complaint, without prejudice, pursuant to the provision of Section 1, Rule 17,
    of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, considering that summons has not yet been served
    and no responsive pleading has yet been filed. The same complaint was re-filed and
    raffled in due course to Branch 260. In due course, the trial court found private respondent
    liable to pay support pendente lite and subsequently cited him in contempt of court after
    failing to tender the required amount pendente lite. Thus, private respondent filed a
    petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which rendered a decision in favor of
    private respondent and declared null and void all the proceedings taken by the trial court.
    Petitioner elevated the case before the Supreme Court when her motion for
    reconsideration was denied by the appeal court.

    Issue: Whether or not petitioner is guilty of forum shopping.

    Held: No. Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendencia are present, and
    where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. In the case at
    bar, the Court found that the dismissal of the complaint did not amount to litis pendencia
    nor to res judicata. There was no litis pendencia since the first case was dismissed or
    withdrawn by the petitioner, without prejudice, upon her filing of a notice of dismissal.
    Neither was there res judicata for the reason that the order of dismissal was not a decision
    on the merits but a dismissal "without prejudice." Thus, the Court held that an omission
    in the certificate of non-forum shopping about any event that would not constitute res
    judicata and litis pendencia as in the case at bar, was not fatal as to merit the dismissal
    and nullification of the entire proceedings considering that the evils sought to be
    prevented by the said certificate were not present. Moreover, the Court held that the
    petition for certiorari on the ground of alleged forum shopping in the trial court was
    premature. Accordingly, the Court reversed the decision and resolution of the Court of
    Appeals.

    You might also like