Short answer. Willful and deliberate forum shopping is treated far more severely than an honest certification error: it grounds summary dismissal with prejudice, constitutes direct contempt of court, and can also lead to administrative sanctions against you or your counsel.
What the law says
If the acts of the party or his [or her] counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.
Rule 7, Section 5 — Certification against forum shopping. Read the full provision →
The certification you sign is meant to prevent exactly this
Section 5 requires the plaintiff or principal party to certify under oath that they have not previously filed any action or claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency, and that, to the best of their knowledge, no such action is pending. That certification is the mechanism the rule uses to catch and deter exactly the situation you describe — filing the same case in two courts.
An honest disclosure failure is treated less harshly
Where a party submits a false certification or fails to comply with the certification's undertakings, the rule treats that as indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to separate administrative and criminal actions. This is serious, but it is the lighter of the two consequences the rule sets out — it applies more broadly to non-compliance with the certification requirement, not specifically to a deliberate scheme to shop for a favorable forum.
Willful, deliberate forum shopping is treated far more severely
The rule draws a sharper line for conduct that clearly constitutes willful and deliberate forum shopping — filing the same case in multiple courts on purpose, to improve your odds, is squarely this category. For that, the consequence escalates: it is ground for summary dismissal with prejudice, meaning the case can be thrown out permanently rather than refiled, it constitutes direct contempt rather than indirect, and it is also a cause for administrative sanctions against the party or their counsel.
Why the distinction between indirect and direct contempt matters
The rule's separation of indirect contempt for a false or noncompliant certification from direct contempt for deliberate forum shopping reflects how much more seriously willful conduct is treated. Direct contempt, paired with dismissal with prejudice rather than the ordinary dismissal without prejudice for a curable defect, shows that intentionally filing the same case in different courts is not something a later amendment or correction can fix — the consequences attach because the conduct itself is deliberate, not merely a procedural slip that a party stumbled into unknowingly or through simple inattention.