"x x x.
II. Petitioners are guilty of forum-shopping.
Petitioners have committed two distinct acts of forum-shopping, namely: (1) petitioners willfully and deliberately went to different courts to avail themselves of multiple judicial remedies founded on similar facts and raising substantially similar reliefs, and (2) they did not comply with their undertaking to report the filing of the Second Complaint within five days from its filing.
A. Petitioners filed multiple suits based on similar facts while seeking similar reliefs—acts proscribed by the rules on forum-shopping.
We rule that petitioners were guilty of willful and deliberate forum-shopping when they filed their Second Complaint with the trial court insofar as they undertook to obtain similar reliefs as those sought in the instant Petition.
Respondent Bank argues that the rights asserted by petitioners, as well as the reliefs petitioners seek in the instant Petition, are identical to those raised in their Second Complaint.
Petitioners, on the other hand, counter that the disparity between the two cases lies in the issue to be resolved. More particularly, they allege that the issue in this Petition is the summary application of the payment of 12% interest per annum as a precondition for the issuance of a writ, as opposed to the issue in the Second Complaint involving the validity of the real estate mortgage and compliance with the rules on the holding of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale.
Forum shopping is the act of litigants who repetitively avail themselves of multiple judicial remedies in different fora, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances; and raising substantially similar issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court; or for the purpose of increasing their chances of obtaining a favorable decision, if not in one court, then in another. The rationale against forum-shopping is that a party should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in two different courts, for to do so would constitute abuse of court processes which tends to degrade the administration of justice, wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial procedure, and adds to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts.
In Yu v. Lim, this Court enumerated the requisites of forum-shopping, as follows:
Forum-shopping exists when the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. Litis pendentia requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) identity of parties, or at least such parties as those representing the same interests in both actions; (2) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts; and (3) identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases, such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other case.
What is essential in determining the existence of forum-shopping is the vexation caused the courts and litigants by a party who asks different courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on similar or related causes and/or grant the same or substantially similar reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered upon the same issues.
A comparison of the reliefs sought by petitioners in the instant Petition and in their Second Complaint confirms that they are substantially similar on two points: (1) revocation and cancellation of the Certificate of Sale and (2) permanent injunction on any transfer and/or consolidation of title in favor of respondent Bank. These similarities undoubtedly create the possibility of conflicting decisions from different courts:
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that immediately upon filing of this petition, the same be given due course, and an order issue, ex parte:
(1) A Resolution be issued directing the Ex-Officio Sheriff and his Assisting Sheriff to undo, cancel, revoke the Certificate of Sale they issued;
(2) Enjoining the Register of Deeds of Paranaque (or any of her subordinates, agents, representatives and persons acting in their behalf to cease and desist from allowing any transfer and/or consolidation of respondents banks title to the property in question and an order be issueddirecting the Register of Deeds to undo, cancel and revoke the registration of the Certificate of Sale on November 13, 2009 and other proceedings had thereafter, the petition be given due course and judgment be rendered as follows:
1. Making the injunction permanent.
2. Issuing a writ of mandatory injunction for the respondent Ex-Officio Sheriff to undo, revoke and cancel the Certificate of Sale issued and/or directing the Register of Deeds to undo, revoke and cancel the registration of the Certificate of Sale and/or defer any consolidation of title in favor of respondent bank pending final resolution of this petition.
3. Reversing and setting aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 24, 2010 and Resolution dated August 5, 2010. (Emphasis supplied.)
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of the Honorable Court that pending consideration and hearing on the principal reliefs herein prayed for, a Temporary Restraining order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction be issued immediatelyrestraining and/or stopping the defendants Ex-Officio Sheriff Atty. Jerry R. Toledo and Deputy Sheriff Paulo Jose N. Cusi from executing and issuing a final deed of sale in favor of the defendant bank and further ordering the defendant Registrar of Deeds of Paranaque City to hold in abeyance the registration of the final deed of sale and other documents of consolidation pending resolution of this Honorable Court. Plaintiffs pray for the following additional reliefs:
1. After hearing on the merits, the Real Estate Mortgage be declared and rescinded and/or null and void;
2. The Certificate of Sale [dated November 4, 2009] issued by the defendant Sheriffs and its subsequent registration on November 13, 2009 with the Registry of Deeds be declared null and void;
3. After due hearing, the preliminary injunction be declared permanent. x x x(Emphases supplied.)
As illustrated above, there is a clear violation of the rules on forum-shopping, as the Court is being asked to grant substantially similar reliefs as those that may also be granted by the trial court, in the process creating a possibility of conflicting decisions.
We emphasize that the grave evil sought to be avoided by the rule against forum-shopping is the rendition by two competent tribunals of two separate and contradictory decisions. To avoid any confusion, this Court adheres strictly to the rules against forum shopping, and any violation of these rules results in the dismissal of a case.The acts committed and described herein can possibly constitute direct contempt.
B. Petitioners did not report the filing of their Second Complaint within five (5) days, in violation of their undertaking to do so.
Aside from the fact that petitioners sought substantially similar reliefs from different courts, they likewise failed to disclose to this Court the filing of their Second Complaint within five (5) days from its filing, in violation of their previous undertaking to do so.
Every litigant is required to notify the court of the filing or pendency of any other action or such other proceeding involving the same or similar action or claim within five (5) days of learning of that fact. Petitioners claim that it was merely due to inadvertence that they failed to disclose the said filing within five (5) days, contrary to their undertaking. 
This Court is not inclined to accept this self-serving explanation. We cannot disregard the glaring fact that respondents had to call the attention of petitioners to the said requirement before the latter admitted that they had indeed filed their Second Complaint.
As previously established, petitioners have violated two (2) components of forum-shopping, more particularly: (1) petitioners willfully and deliberately went to different courts to avail themselves of multiple judicial remedies founded on similar facts and raising substantially similar reliefs, an act which may be punishable as direct contempt; and (2) they did not comply with their undertaking to report the filing of the Second Complaint within five days from its filing. The latter action may also possibly be construed as a separate count for indirect contempt.
While in a limited sense, petitioners have already been given the chance to rebut the prayer to hold them in contempt, We hereby provide sufficient avenue for them to explain themselves by requiring them to show cause, within fifteen (15) days, why they should not be held in direct and indirect contempt of court.
x x x."