Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 49 views

    Lim V Vianzon

    Uploaded by

    Gabriel Uy
    Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss a case before the RTC, raising grounds of forum shopping and extinguishment of the cause of action due to a previous property sale. The RTC denied the motion, finding it unmeritorious. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied. The RTC found no need to state facts or law for an interlocutory order, and that there was no forum shopping as the civil case had a different cause of action than a related criminal case. The Supreme Court determined that any errors by the RTC were merely errors of judgment that do not constitute grave abuse of discretion, and that the issues raised in the motion to dismiss were best addressed through a full trial.

    Copyright:

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

    Lim V Vianzon

    Uploaded by

    Gabriel Uy
    49 views2 pages
    Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss a case before the RTC, raising grounds of forum shopping and extinguishment of the cause of action due to a previous property sale. The RTC denied the motion, finding it unmeritorious. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied. The RTC found no need to state facts or law for an interlocutory order, and that there was no forum shopping as the civil case had a different cause of action than a related criminal case. The Supreme Court determined that any errors by the RTC were merely errors of judgment that do not constitute grave abuse of discretion, and that the issues raised in the motion to dismiss were best addressed through a full trial.

    Original Title

    Lim v vianzon.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss a case before the RTC, raising grounds of forum shopping and extinguishment of the cause of action due to a previous property sale. The RTC denied the motion, finding it unmeritorious. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied. The RTC found no need to state facts or law for an interlocutory order, and that there was no forum shopping as the civil case had a different cause of action than a related criminal case. The Supreme Court determined that any errors by the RTC were merely errors of judgment that do not constitute grave abuse of discretion, and that the issues raised in the motion to dismiss were best addressed through a full trial.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    49 views2 pages

    Lim V Vianzon

    Uploaded by

    Gabriel Uy
    Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss a case before the RTC, raising grounds of forum shopping and extinguishment of the cause of action due to a previous property sale. The RTC denied the motion, finding it unmeritorious. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied. The RTC found no need to state facts or law for an interlocutory order, and that there was no forum shopping as the civil case had a different cause of action than a related criminal case. The Supreme Court determined that any errors by the RTC were merely errors of judgment that do not constitute grave abuse of discretion, and that the issues raised in the motion to dismiss were best addressed through a full trial.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Im v vianzon

    On 24 June 1998, the petitioners filed before the RTC of Balanga, Bataan, Branch 1 a Motion to
    Dismiss raising the following grounds: a) private respondents violated the rule against forum-
    shopping in that they failed to state in the Verification and Certification attached to the
    Complaint that there is an earlier case filed by petitioners (sic) against them (sic) not only
    involving the same issues but also the same set of facts; and b) the claim set forth in private
    respondents’ Complaint had been extinguished by the previous sale of the property to the
    petitioners. 18

    Public respondent then issued the assailed Order 19 dated 3 September 1998 denying the
    petitioners’ Motion to Dismiss in this wise:

    Finding the Motion to Dismiss filed by the defendants and the grounds relied upon to be
    unmeritorious, the same is DENIED.

    WHEREFORE, the Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED for the lack of merit.

    SO ORDERED. 20

    Petitioners filed their Motion for Reconsideration on 25 September 1998 which public
    respondent likewise denied in an Order 21 dated 13 November 1998. A portion of said Order
    reads as follows:

    xxxx

    That the court’s order dated September 3, 1998 is a mere interlocutory order and not a final
    judgment or decision where there is a need for the court to state clearly the facts and the law
    relied upon by it;

    That as correctly pointed out by the plaintiff’s counsel, for forum shopping to be present, both
    actions must raise identical causes of action, subject matter and issues and there can be no
    forum-shopping in the instant civil case because as a civil action, it has a different cause of
    action from a criminal action instituted by the defendants; 22

    Parenthetically, assuming that the two orders were erroneous, such error would merely be
    deemed as an error of judgment that cannot be remedied by certiorari. As long as the public
    respondent acted with jurisdiction, any error committed by him or it in the exercise thereof will
    amount to nothing more than an error of judgment which may be reviewed or corrected only by
    appeal. All errors committed in the exercise of such jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment.
    Certiorari under Rule 65 is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not
    errors of judgment. Petitioners’ rights can be more appropriately addressed in an appeal. 38

    Significantly, even if we accord merit to petitioners’ contention that public respondent denied
    their Motion to Dismiss perfunctorily, it does not follow that the motion to dismiss should have
    been granted or that the conclusion should be that public respondent had acted with grave abuse
    of discretion.

    The Motion to Dismiss, as earlier noted, is predicated on two grounds, namely: breach of the
    forum-shopping rule and extinguishment of the cause of action by the previous sale of the
    property involved to them.

    Anent the contention that private respondents’ complaint has been extinguished by their sale of
    the property to the petitioners, this is a matter best threshed out through a full-blown trial.

    In sum, the viability of the instant petitions is irreversibly neutered by the procedural deficiencies
    thereof and the absence of grave abuse of discretion on public respondent’s part.

    You might also like