G.R. No. 152579 6 of 8 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/152579.htm or signs a pleading in violation of this Rule, or alleges scandalous or indecent matter therein, or fails to promptly report to the court a change of his address, shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action. (Emphasis supplied.) Obviously, the rule allows the pleadings to be signed by either the party to the case or the counsel representing that party. In this case, ASBT, as petitioner, opted to sign its petition and its motion for reconsideration in its own behalf, through its corporate president, Mildred R. Santos, who was duly authorized by ASBTs Board of Directors to represent the company in prosecuting this case. Therefore, the said pleadings cannot be considered unsigned and without any legal effect. Second. Sameer also submits that ASBT violated the prohibition against forum shopping. It claims that the transfer of CA-G.R. SP No. 65068 from the Seventh Division of the Court of Appealswhich initially denied due course and dismissed the petition then reinstated the same (upon proof that Mildred R. Santos as duly authorized) in the Former Fourth Division, which gave due course to and granted the petitionwas actually an act of forum shopping. Sameer posits that the grant of ASBTs July 5, 2001 motion for reconsideration by the Seventh Division, which reinstated the dismissed petition, in effect gave rise to a new petition. The argument is sadly misplaced. Forum shopping is defined as an act of a party, against whom an adverse judgment or order has been rendered in one forum, of seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion in another forum, other than by appeal or special civil action for certiorari. It may also be the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable [10] disposition. There is forum shopping where the elements of litis pendentia are present, namely: (a) there is identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interest in both actions; (b) there is identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same set of facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other. [11] It is expressly prohibited by this Court because it trifles with and abuses court processes, degrades the administration of justice, and congests court dockets. A willful and deliberate violation of the rule against forum shopping is a [12] ground for summary dismissal of the case, and may also constitute direct contempt. In this case, there is clearly no forum shopping committed by ASBT. The July 5, 2001 motion it filed praying for reconsideration of the June 19, 2001 Resolution of the Court of 1/28/2016 1:44 PM