In we ruled that litigants are provided with the options on the course of action to take in order to obtain judicial relief, and once an option has been taken and a case is filed in court, the parties must ventilate all matters and relevant issues therein.
04-7-373-RTC [REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 60, BARILI, CEBU] AND A. 36-2004 DATED MARCH 3, 2004], PROSECUTOR MARY ANN T. The RTC Decision was, however, appealed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to the Court of Appeals (CA).In connection with the second petition, she failed to state the pendency of the first case in the certificate of [non-forum] shopping.Also, upon closer examination of the two actions, it shows that the respondent misled the courts in stating two different residence addresses in order to suit the jurisdictional requirements of filing the petitions in two different courts., x x x By evidently deceiving the second court, the respondent prosecutor violated Canon 10, Rule 10.01, and Rule 10.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility x x x. Forum shopping is the act of a party who repetitively availed of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues, either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court, to increase his chances of obtaining a favorable decision if not in one court, then in another.Roa "manifested sadism wherein if he pleasures to have sex, [Castro-Roa] should abide even if against her will or else she would suffer physical pain x x x as what x x x happened last April 2, 1993 x x x." Castro-Roa argued that all of these acts are tantamount to psychological incapacity to comply with the essential marital obligations.In her testimony in the Second Petition, Castro-Roa alleged that she observed that her husband "is a kind of sadist." She stated that on April 2, 1993, she received physical beatings when she refused sex with her husband as she was not feeling well.The CA ruled that a final judgment of conviction in the criminal case of perjury was needed before Castro-Roa can be proceeded against administratively.
It also explained that the administrative charge of grave misconduct was based solely on the alleged perjury committed, which was not work-related and not an administrative offense .
04-7-373-RTC [REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 60, BARILI, CEBU] AND A. 36-2004 DATED MARCH 3, 2004], PROSECUTOR MARY ANN T. dated January 26, 2004 granting the Second Petition, and declaring the marriage between Castro-Roa and her husband null and void.
04-7-374-RTC [VIOLATION OF JUDGE ILDEFONSO SUERTE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 60, BARILI, CEBU OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. The Second Petition was grounded on fraud through the concealment of drug addiction and habitual alcoholism under Article 45 (3) in relation to Article 46 of the Family Code.
04-7-374-RTC [VIOLATION OF JUDGE ILDEFONSO SUERTE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 60, BARILI, CEBU OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. dated April 24, 2001 (RTC Decision), RTC Branch 56 granted the First Petition, and declared the marriage between Castro-Roa and her husband null and void by reason of psychological incapacity.
dated October 12, 2004, this Court ordered the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to look into the fitness of Castro-Roa as a member of the bar in connection with her filing of two separate petitions for annulment of marriage in two different trial courts.
Thus, the case was remanded to RTC Branch 56 in order to give Mr. (Second Petition) on November 20, 2003 with RTC Branch 60, Barili, Ccbu (RTC Branch 60).