Case :Davao Light vs CA Date :December 29 1991 Topic: Topic: Writ Writ of preliminary preliminary attachment attachment Facts: The Davao Light and o!er Co"# $nc" %&Davao Light&' (led a collection s)it against *)een *)eensla sland nd +otel +otel %&*)e %&*)eens enslan land&' d&' and Teodori eodorico co Ad Adar arna na %&Adar %&Adarna na&' &' !ith !ith an e, parte parte application for a !rit of preliminary attachment" -n . /ay 1909# the trial co)rt iss)ed an -rder of Attachment# and the corresponding corresponding Writ of Attachment on 11 /ay 1909" -n 12 /ay 1909# the s)mmons# a copy of the complaint# and the !rit of attachment !as served )pon *)eensland *)eensland and Adarna" Adarna" *)eensland and Adarna (led a motion to discharge the attachment on the gro)nd that at the time the -rder of Attachment and Writ of Attachment !ere iss)ed# the trial co)rt has yet to ac)ire )risdiction )risdiction over the ca)se of action and over the persons of the defendants" $ss)e: Whether or not the !rit of preliminary attachment !as validly iss)ed" +eld: +eld: 3es" A !rit !rit of preli prelimin minar ary y attac attachme hment nt may be iss iss)ed )ed befor before e the co)rt co)rt ac)i ac)ire res s )risdiction over the person person of the defendant" defendant" The co)rt may validly iss)e a !rit of preliminary preliminary in)nction prior to the ac)isition of )risdiction over the person person of the defendant" defendant" There There is an appreciabl appreciable e period of time time bet!een the commencement of the action %ta4es place )pon the (ling of an initiatory pleading' and the service of s)mmons to the defendant" $n the mean!hile# there are a n)mber of actions !hich the plainti5 or the co)rt may validly ta4e# incl)ding the application for and grant of the provi provisio siona nall remed remedy y of preli prelimin minary ary attach attachmen ment" t" There There is nothin nothing g in the la! !hich !hich prohibits the co)rt from granting the remedy prior to the ac)isition of )risdiction over the person of the defendant" $n fact# 6)le 78 of the 6)les of Co)rt allo!s the granting of a !rit of preliminary in)nction at the commencement of the s)it" $n the cases of Toledo v" )rgos and Filin ilinve vest st Cred Credit it Corp Corpor orat atio ion n v" 6elov elova# a# it !as !as held held that that noti notice ce and and hear hearin ing g are are not not prere)isites to the iss)ance of a !rit of preliminary attachment" F)rther# in the case of /indanao avings ; Loan Association# $nc" v" Co)rt of Appeals# it !as r)led that giving notice to the defendant !o)ld defeat the p)rpose of the remedy by a5ording him or her the opport)nity to dispose of his properties before the !rit can be iss)ed" A preliminary attachment may be discharged !ith the same ease as obtaining it" $n any case# the ease of availing the provisional remedy of preliminary attachment is matched by the ease !ith !hich it can be remedied by either the posting of a co)nterbond# or by a sho!ing of its improper or irreg)lar iss)ance" The second means of defeating a preliminary attachement# ho!ever# may not be availed of if the !rit !as iss)ed )pon a gro)nd !hich is at the same time the applicant
Case:=stares vs CA
Date:>)ne 0 2??7 Topic: Non-Forum Shopping Certifcation Signature o both spouses Facts: he spo)ses =stares sec)red a loan of 0??4 from rominent Lending ; Credit Corporation %LCC' in 1990" To sec)re the loan# they mortgaged a parcel of land" They ho!ever only received @.84 as testi(ed by 6osenda =stares in co)rt" he did not ho!ever )estion the discrepancy" At that time# her h)sband !as in Algeria !or4ing" The loan event)ally !ent d)e and the spo)ses !ere )nable to pay" o LCC petitioned for an e,tra)dicial foreclos)re" The property !as event)ally foreclosed" o!# the spo)ses are )estioning the validity of the loan as they alleged that they agreed to an 10B per ann)m interest rate b)t LCC is no! charging them ."7B interest rate per month they also )estioned the terms of the loan" LCC arg)ed that the spo)ses !ere properly apprised of the terms of the loan" -n the proced)ral aspect# LCC claims that the petition (led by the spo)ses is invalid beca)se the certi(cation of nonfor)m shopping !as only signed by 6osenda and her h)sband did not sign" $ss)e: Whether or not the petition (led by the spo)ses is valid" +eld: 3es# b)t their petition shall not prosper d)e to s)bstantial gro)nds" The spo)ses !ere properly apprised by the terms of the loan they did not )estion the terms of the loan !hen they had the opport)nity !hen it did not yet mat)re" 6osenda even ac4no!ledged the terms of the loan in co)rt" -n the proced)ral aspect# even tho)gh =liseo did not sign the certi(cation %beca)se he !as in Algeria'# there is still s)bstantial compliance !ith the r)les" After all they share a common interest in the property involved since it is con)gal property# and the petition )estioning the propriety of the decision of the Co)rt of Appeals originated from an action bro)ght by the spo)ses# and is clearly intended for the bene(t of the con)gal partnership" Considering that the h)sband !as at that time an overseas contract !or4er !or4ing in Algeria# !hereas the petition !as prepared in ta" 6osa# Lag)na# a rigid application of the r)les on for)mshopping that !o)ld disa)thoriEe the !ifes signing the certi(cation in her behalf and that of her h)sband is too harsh and clearly )ncalled for"
Case: /irriam College Fo)ndation vs CA Date:December 17 2??? Topic: prohibition !ith preliminary in)nction Facts: The members of the editorial board of the /iriam College Fo)ndations school paper !ere s)bected to disciplinary sanction by the College Discipline Committee after letters of complaint !ere (led before the oard follo!ing the p)blication of the school paper that contains obscene# v)lgar# and se,)ally e,plicit contents" rior to the disciplinary sanction to the defendants they !ere re)ired to s)bmit a !ritten statement to ans!er the complaints against them to the Discipline Committee b)t the defendants# instead of doing so !rote to the Committee to transfer the case to the D=C !hich they alleged to have the )risdiction over the iss)e" )shing thro)gh !ith the investigation e, parte the Committee fo)nd the defendants g)ilty and imposed )pon them disciplinary sanctions" Defendants (led before the co)rt for prohibition !ith preliminary in)nction on said decision of the Committee )estioning the )risdiction of said Discipline oard over the defendants" $ss)e: !as The e,ercise of )risdiction of the trial co)rt to entertain the petition for certiorari (led by the st)dents validG +eld: D=F=DAT C+--L D$C$L$A63 C-//$TT== AD T+= D$C$L$A63 -A6D D-T +AH= T+= *IAL$F$CAT$- -F A $/A6T$AL AD =IT6AL A6$T=6 AD# T+=6=F-6= T+=$6 TAJ$K C-K$AC= -F T+= CA= AKA$T LA$T$FF W$LL D=3 T+= LATT=6 -F T+=$6 6$K+T T- DI= 6-C=" Anent the (rst gro)nd# the st)dents theoriEed that )nder 6)le M$$ of the 6)les and 6eg)lations for the $mplementation of 6"A" o" 8?89# the D=C 6egional -Nce# and not the school# had )risdiction over them" The second gro)nd# on the other hand# alleged lac4 of impartiality of the /iriam Disciplinary oard# !hich !o)ld thereby deprive them of d)e process" This contention# if tr)e# !o)ld constit)te grave ab)se of discretion amo)nting to lac4 or e,cess of )risdiction on the part of the trial co)rt" These !ere the same gro)nds invo4ed by the st)dents in their ref)sal to ans!er the charges against them" The iss)es !ere th)s limited to the )estion of )risdiction a )estion p)rely legal in nat)re and !ell !ithin the competence and the )risdiction of the trial co)rt# not the D=C 6egional -Nce" This is an e,ception to the doctrine of primary )risdiction" As the Co)rt held in hil" Klobal Comm)nications# $nc" vs" 6elova"O.8P
Absent s)ch clarity as to the scope and coverage of its franchise# a legal )estion arises !hich is more appropriate for the )diciary than for an administrative agency to resolve" The doctrine of primary )risdiction calls for application !hen there is s)ch competence to act on the part of an administrative body" etitioner ass)mes that s)ch is the case" That is to beg the )estion" There is merit# therefore# to the approach ta4en by private respondents to see4 )dicial remedy as to !hether or not the legislative franchise co)ld be so interpreted as to enable the ational Telecomm)nications Commission to act on the matter" A )risdictional )estion th)s arises and calls for an ans!er"
+o!ever# !hen /iriam College in its motion for reconsideration contended that the D=C 6egional -Nce# not the 6TC# had )risdiction# the trial co)rt# ref)sing to &be more popish than the ope#& dismissed the case" $ndeed# the trial co)rt co)ld hardly contain its glee over the fact that &it !ill have one more case o)t of its doc4et"& We remind the trial co)rt that a co)rt having )risdiction of a case has not only the right and the po!er or a)thority# b)t also the d)ty# to e,ercise that )risdiction and to render a decision in a case properly s)bmitted to it"O.0P Accordingly# the trial co)rt sho)ld not have dismissed the petition !itho)t settling the iss)es presented before it"
Case: =M=CIT$H= =C6=TA63 v" F-6=6I=6 /ILT$ 6=-I6C=# $C" Date: >an)ary 8# 2?1. Topic: $n)nctive relief Facts: =,ec)tive -rder o" 17@ %=- 17@'.# iss)ed by resident Kloria /acapagalArroyo %resident Arroyo' on 12 December 2??2# imposes a partial ban on the importation of )sed motor vehicles"Q The ban is part of several meas)res =- 17@ adopts to &accelerate the so)nd development of the motor vehicle ind)stry in the hilippines"&7 $n =,ec)tive ecretary v" o)th!ing +eavy $nd)stries# $nc" and t!o related petitions@ %collectively# o)th!ing'# !e fo)nd =- 17@ a valid e,ec)tive iss)ance enforceable thro)gho)t the hilippine c)stoms territory# e,cept in the )bic pecial =conomic and Freeport one in ambales %)bic Freeport' by virt)e of its stat)s as a &separate c)stoms territory& )nder 6ep)blic Act o" 82288 6espondent Forer)nner /)lti 6eso)rces# $nc" %respondent'# a corporation engaged in the importation of )sed motor vehicles via the ports of Aparri# Cagayan and an Fernando# La Inion# s)ed the government in the 6egional Trial Co)rt of Aparri# Cagayan %trial co)rt' to declare invalid =- 17@# impleading petitioner p)blic oNcials as respondents"0 6espondent attac4ed =- 17@ for %1' having been iss)ed by resident Arroyo )ltra vires %2' trenching the D)e rocess and =)al rotection Cla)ses of the Constit)tion and %.' having been s)perseded by =,ec)tive -rder o" Q10 %=- Q10'#9 iss)ed by resident Arroyo on Q April 2??7# modifying the tari5 rates of imported )sed motor vehicles" 6espondent so)ght a preliminary in)nctive !rit to enoin# litis pendentia# the enforcement of =- 17@" The 6)ling of the Trial Co)rt
Acting on respondents application for preliminary in)nctive remedy# the trial co)rt granted relief# initially by iss)ing a temporary restraining order follo!ed by a !rit of preliminary in)nction granted in its -rder of 28 ovember 2??0"1? -n petitioners motion# ho!ever# the trial co)rt reconsidered its -rder and lifted the in)nctive !rit on 8 >)ly 2?1?" The trial co)rt gro)nded its r)ling on o)th!ing !hich it considered as negating any &clear and )nmista4able legal right& on the part of respondent to receive the &protection of a !rit of preliminary in)nction"&11GrGl1 6espondent elevated the case to the Co)rt of Appeals in a certiorari petition" $ss)e: W- $n)nctive relief not iss)ed for selfinRicted losses abs)e in)riaG
are considered damn)m
+eld: $n)nctive relief not iss)ed for selfinRicted losses !hich are damn)m abs)e in)ria" $n arriving at a contrary concl)sion# the Co)rt of Appeals d!elt on the Sgrave and irremediable (nancial losses respondent !as poised to s)stain as a res)lt of =- 17@s enforcement# (nding s)ch pre)dice Sine)itable" o do)bt# by importing )sed vehicles in contravention of the ban )nder =- 17@# respondent ris4ed s)staining losses" )ch ris4# ho!ever# !as self imposed" +aving miscalc)lated its chances# respondent cannot loo4 to co)rts for an in)nctive relief against selfinRicted losses !hich are in the nat)re of damn)m abs)e in)ria" $n)nction !ill not iss)e on the mere possibility that a litigant !ill s)stain damage# !itho)t proof of a clear legal right entitling the litigant to protection"
Case: e)itable vs special steel Date: Topic: Facts: SSPI sold welding electrodes to Interco, as evidenced by sales invoices. It is due on March
16 1991 (for thefirst sales invoice_ and May 11 1991 (for others. It also !rovided that Interco would !ay interest at the rate of "6# !er annu$ in case of delay. In !ay$ent of for the !roducts, Interco issued " chec%s !ayable to the order of SSPI. &ach chec% was crossed with the notation 'account !ayee only and was drawn against &)uitable. *he records do not identify the signatory for the chec%s, or e+!lain how y ca$e in !ossession of these chec%s. -eclai$ed that he had good title thereto. -e de$anded the de!osits in his !ersonal accounts in &)uitable. *he ban% did so relying on ys status as a valued client and as son/in/law of Intercos $a0ority stoc%holder. SSPI re$inded Interco of the un!aid welding electrodes, e+!laining that its i$$ediate need for !ay$entas it was e+!eriencing so$e financial crisis of its own. It re!lied that it has already issued " chec%s !ayable toSSPI and drawn against &)uitable, which was denied by SSPI.ater on it was discovered that it was y, not SSPI, who received the !roceeds of " chec%s. Interco finally !aidthe value of " chec%s to SSPI !lus !ortion of accrued interests. Interco refused to !ay entire accrued
interest onthe ground that it was not res!onsible for the delay. -ence, Pardo filed a co$!laint for da$ages against y and &)uitable 2an% alleging that the " crossed chec%s, all !ayable to order of SSPI could be de!osited and encashedby SSPI only. *rial 3ourt rendered decision in favor of Pardo which was affir$ed by 34
+eld:
Case:ero,ide vs CA Date:>)ly .1 1991 Topic: Facts: +eld:
Case: Date: Topic: Facts: +eld:
Case: Date: Topic: Facts: +eld:
Case: Date: Topic: Facts: +eld: