1/5/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly such as: (1) correction of any clerical errors; (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party; (3) void judgments; and (4) whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable[35] none of which was alleged and proved here. Forum shopping; when committed. Moreover, not only did petitioner endeavor to alter an already final and executory judgment, he committed forum shopping when he filed his Motion to Account in the PPO case; thus, the RTC-Tagum should have dismissed it outright. A party is guilty of forum shopping when he or she institutes, either simultaneously or successively, two or more actions before different courts asking the latter to rule the same or related issues and grant the same or substantially the same reliefs. Such institution of actions is on the notion that one or the other court would render a favorable ruling or increase the chance of the party of obtaining a favorable decision. [36] More particularly, forum shopping is evident in these situations: (1) filing multiple cases based on he same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal is litis pendentia); (2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved (where the ground for dismissal is res judicata); and (3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action but with different prayers (splitting of causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res judicata).[37] In fine, there is forum shopping when a party files two or more cases involving the same parties, causes of action and reliefs. Notably forum shopping is one of the grounds for the dismissal of a case. The rule against it aims to avoid the rendition of two competent courts of separate and opposing rulings which may arise because a party-litigant, takes advantage and tries his or her luck into seeking relief until a result in one's favor is attained.[38] In this case, the identity of parties in the Dissolution case and in the Motion to Account (filed in the PPO case) cannot be denied. Both of these cases involved herein petitioner and respondent. Moreover, the rights and reliefs asserted by petitioner in the Dissolution case pertained to the same ones that he declared in the Motion to Account. To stress, in the Dissolution case, petitioner prayed that: (1) an order be issued against respondent in order for their co-ownership be wound up and accounted, and for respondent to turnover papers and effects affecting the co-ownership; and (2) for the affairs be settled and distribution be made to them. In said case, petitioner listed real properties located in Tagum City, which, he claimed to have been purchased because of his and respondent's lending business and which were subject of their supposed coownership. Specifically, these real properties were registered under Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-239652, T-239653, T-239654, T-241966, T-241746, T-234235, T-234600 https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65967 5/11