Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=40447:g-r-no-127058-august-31,-2000-cristina-c-quinsay-v-court-of-appeals,-et-al&amp;catid=1396&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:38:49+00:00

Document:
CRISTINA C. QUINSAY, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, Hon. ELSIE LIGOT-TELAN, CESAR M. QUINSAY, Respondents.
Petitioner and private respondent were married on December 18, 1968. They have eight (8) children. During their cohabitation, the spouses accumulated conjugal assets worth millions of pesos. Way back in 1994, after the parties had separated in fact, private respondent filed a petition for declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. At the pre-trial, the court granted the spouses a 6-month cooling off period and within thirty (30) days to arrive at an agreement for the dissolution of their conjugal regime. Pursuant to the trial court’s order, the parties entered into an "Agreement for the Dissolution of the Conjugal Partnership and Separation of Property," which, after hearing, was approved by the trial court on September 30, 1994. However, on January 31, 1995, petitioner filed an omnibus motion including a motion to amend the said agreement for the inclusion of other conjugal properties, which were allegedly concealed fraudulently by private Respondent.
The petition bears no merit.
With petitioner’s "Motion to Amend Agreement dated July 27, 1994 by Inclusion of Other Conjugal Properties" dated 31 January 1995 filed before the trial court, and her petition before the CA for "annulment of the Order and prohibition against the order of the trial court" which approved the same agreement, it is clear that there is forum-shopping. The petition filed before the CA was not an appeal from the order of the trial court approving the agreement, nor a special civil action assailing the same trial court’s order. On the contrary, the CA case was filed during the pendency of her motion before the trial court. It should be noted that the latter motion and the petition before the CA pertains to the same subject — amendment of the compromise agreement to include what are alleged to be fraudulently concealed properties, and for declaration of the correct valuations of the said properties. It appears that the said motion has not yet been resolved by the trial court when the CA petition was filed.
Forum-shopping concurs not only when a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another, but also where the elements of litis pendentia are present. 1 The filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment amounts to forum-shopping. 2 Only when the successive filing of suits as part of an appeal, or a special civil action, will there be no forum-shopping 3 because the party no longer availed of different fora but, rather, sought a review of a lower tribunal’s decision or order. The termination of the case before a lower court and its elevation for review to a higher court does not constitute forum-shopping for the latter is a recognized remedy under our procedural rules.
1.	Philippine Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, Inc. v. Abiertas House of Friendship, Inc, 292 SCRA 785; Buan v. Lopez, 145 SCRA 34.
2.	Executive Secretary v. Cordon, 298 SCRA 736.
3.	Santo Tomas University Hospital v. Surla, 294 SCRA 382.
4.	Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Flores, 287 SCRA 449.
5.	First Philippine International Bank v. CA, 322 Phil. 280.
6.	Blanco v. Quasha, G.R. No. 133148, November 17, 1999; Moomba Mining v. CA, G.R. No. 108846, October 26, 1999; Ceremionia v. CA, G.R. No. 103453, September 21, 1999.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.