Lawyerly

GR No. 160399

2015-12-09

BERSAMIN, J.

A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order requiring a party or a court, an agency, or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts. Its essential role is preservative of the rights of the parties in order to protect the ability of the court to render a meaningful decision,[16] or in order to guard against a change of circumstances that will hamper or prevent the granting of the proper relief after the trial on the merits.[17] Another essential role is preventive of the threats to cause irreparable harm or injury to a party before the litigation could be resolved. In Pahila-Garrido v. Tortogo,[18] we have explained the preservative or preventive character of injunction as a remedy in the course of the litigation, viz.:Generally, injunction, being a preservative remedy for the protection of substantive rights or interests, is not a cause of action in itself but merely a provisional remedy, an adjunct to a main suit. It is resorted to only when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences that cannot be redressed under any standard of compensation. The controlling reason for the existence of the judicial power to issue the writ of injunction is that the court may thereby prevent a threatened or continuous irremediable injury to some of the parties before their claims can be thoroughly investigated and advisedly adjudicated. The application for the writ rests upon an alleged existence of an emergency or of a special reason for such an order to issue before the case can be regularly heard, and the essential conditions for granting such temporary injunctive relief are that the complaint alleges facts that appear to be sufficient to constitute a cause of action for injunction and that on the entire showing from both sides, it appears, in view of all the circumstances, that the injunction is reasonably necessary to protect the legal rights of plaintiff pending the litigation.

GR No. 189509

2015-11-23

METROPOLITAN BANK v. G & P BUILDERS

LEONEN, J.

Petitioner committed a procedural error when it filed a Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals instead of filing a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The distinction is important because "[t]he remedy against an interlocutory order not subject of an appeal is an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65 [.]"[98] The reason behind the rule is to prevent multiplicity of suits:The reason for disallowing an appeal from an interlocutory order is to avoid multiplicity of appeals in a single action, which necessarily suspends the hearing and decision on the merits of the action during the pendency of the appeals. Permitting multiple appeals will necessarily delay the trial on the merits of the case for a considerable length of time, and will compel the adverse party to incur unnecessary expenses, for one of the parties may interpose as many appeals as there are incidental questions raised by him and as there are interlocutory orders rendered or issued by the lower court. An interlocutory order may be the subject of an appeal, but only after a judgment has been rendered, with the ground for appealing the order being included in the appeal of the judgment itself.[99] (Citation omitted)

GR No. 200465

2015-04-20

JOCELYN ASISTIO Y CONSINO v. PEOPLE

PERALTA, J.

However, the Court may set aside technicality for justifiable reasons as when the petition before it is clearly meritorious and filed on time both under Rules 45 and 65.[15] In accordance with the liberal spirit which pervades the Rules of Court and in the interest of justice, the Court may treat the petition as having been filed under Rule 45. Here, no justifiable reasons were proffered by petitioner for a more liberal interpretation of procedural rules. Although it was filed on time both under Rules 45 and 65, the petition at bench lacks substantive merit and raises only questions of law which should have been duly made in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.[16]

GR No. 212496

2015-03-18

NESTOR BRACERO v. RODULFO ARCELO

LEONEN, J.

Petitioner Nestor Bracero, through his counsel Atty. Danilo Pilapil, had several opportunities to argue his position before the courts but failed to take them. Petitioner should now be considered in estoppel from assailing the Regional Trial Court Order dated February 11, 2010 denying petitioner's Urgent Motion to Vacate the Writ of Execution, affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Also, "[t]o frustrate the winning party's right through dilatory schemes is to frustrate all the efforts, time and expenditure of the] courts, which thereby increases the costs of litigation."[83]

GR No. 157163

2014-06-25

BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. JUDGE AGAPITO L. ANOSAS

BERSAMIN, J.

Every court should remember that an injunction should not be granted lightly or precipitately because it is a limitation upon the freedom of the defendant's action. It should be granted only when the court is fully satisfied that the law permits it and the emergency demands it,[50] for no power exists whose exercise is more delicate, which requires greater caution and deliberation, or is more dangerous in a doubtful case, than the issuance of an injunction.[51]

GR No. 196894

2014-03-03

JESUS G. CRISOLOGO v. JEWM AGRO-INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION

MENDOZA, J.

At any rate, the remedy against an interlocutory order, not subject of an appeal, is an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65, provided that the interlocutory order is rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Only then is certiorari under Rule 65 allowed to be resorted to.[26]

GR No. 156407

2014-01-15

THELMA M. ARANAS v. TERESITA V. MERCADO

BERSAMIN, J.

The propriety of the special civil action for certiorari as a remedy depended on whether the assailed orders of the RTC were final or interlocutory in nature. In Pahila-Garrido v. Tortogo,[16] the Court distinguished between final and interlocutory orders as follows: The distinction between a final order and an interlocutory order is well known. The first disposes of the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing more to be done except to enforce by execution what the court has determined, but the latter does not completely dispose of the case but leaves something else to be decided upon. An interlocutory order deals with preliminary matters and the trial on the merits is yet to be held and the judgment rendered. The test to ascertain whether or not an order or a judgment is interlocutory or final is: does the order or judgment leave something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case? If it does, the order or judgment is interlocutory; otherwise, it is final.

AM No. MTJ-13-1834

2013-10-02

JESUS D. CARBAJOSA v. JUDGE HANNIBAL R. PATRICIO

REYES, J.

Any delay in the full execution of a final and executory decision is repugnant to the ideal administration of justice. Hence the rule that once a judgment attains finality, it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. The enforcement of such judgment should not be hampered or evaded; for the immediate enforcement of the parties' rights, confirmed by final judgment, is a major component of the ideal administration of justice.[23] Our penal laws and rules of procedure, in particular, enjoin that when the judgment of conviction is already final and executory its execution is ministerial.[24]

GR No. 191247

2013-07-10

FRANCISCO L. ROSARIO v. LELLANI DE GUZMAN

MENDOZA, J.

Indeed, on several occasions, this Court has allowed a petition to prosper despite the utilization of an improper remedy with the reasoning that the inflexibility or rigidity of the application of the rules of procedure must give way to serve the higher ends of justice. The strict application of procedural technicalities should not hinder the speedy disposition of the case on the merits.[12] Thus, this Court deems it expedient to consider this petition as having been filed under Rule 65.

GR No. 170038

2012-07-11

CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. SPS. HARRY CIRIACO AND ESTHER CIRIACO

BRION, J.

A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action prior to the judgment or final order requiring a party or a court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts.[27] It is the "strong arm of equity,"[28] an extraordinary peremptory remedy that must be used with extreme caution,[29] affecting as it does the respective rights of the parties.[30]

GR No. 170038

2012-07-11

CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. SPS. HARRY CIRIACO AND ESTHER CIRIACO

BRION, J.

Every court should remember that an injunction is a limitation upon the freedom of the defendant's action and should not be granted lightly or precipitately. It should be granted only when the court is fully satisfied that the law permits it and the emergency demands it;[37] no power exists whose exercise is more delicate, which requires greater caution and deliberation, or is more dangerous in a doubtful case, than the issuance of an injunction.[38]

GR No. 192737

2012-04-25

NEMIA CASTRO v. ROSALYN GUEVARRA

MENDOZA, J.

A motion for reconsideration is a condition precedent to the filing of a petition for certiorari. However, the Court has recognized exceptions to the requirement, such as: (a) when it is necessary to prevent irreparable damages and injury to a party; (b) where the trial judge capriciously and whimsically exercised his judgment; (c) where there may be danger of a failure of justice; (d) where an appeal would be slow, inadequate, and insufficient; (e) where the issue raised is one purely of law; (f) where public interest is involved; and (g) in case of urgency.[26] The circumstances obtaining in this case definitely placed Castro's recourse under most of the above exceptions particularly because Judge Mangrobang ordered a new trial in the March 23, 2007 Order.[27]

GR No. 158239

2012-01-25

PRISCILLA ALMA JOSE v. RAMON C. JAVELLANA

BERSAMIN, J.

First of all, the denial of Javellana's motion for reconsideration left nothing more to be done by the RTC because it confirmed the dismissal of Civil Case No. 79-M-97. It was clearly a final order, not an interlocutory one. The Court has distinguished between final and interlocutory orders in Pahila-Garrido v. Tortogo,[22] thuswise: The distinction between a final order and an interlocutory order is well known. The first disposes of the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing more to be done except to enforce by execution what the court has determined, but the latter does not completely dispose of the case but leaves something else to be decided upon. An interlocutory order deals with preliminary matters and the trial on the merits is yet to be held and the judgment rendered. The test to ascertain whether or not an order or a judgment is interlocutory or final is: does the order or judgment leave something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case? If it does, the order or judgment is interlocutory; otherwise, it is final.

	GR No. 160399 2015-12-09	CITY OF ILOILO v. JUDGE RENE B. HONRADO BERSAMIN, J.
A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order requiring a party or a court, an agency, or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts. Its essential role is preservative of the rights of the parties in order to protect the ability of the court to render a meaningful decision,[16] or in order to guard against a change of circumstances that will hamper or prevent the granting of the proper relief after the trial on the merits.[17] Another essential role is preventive of the threats to cause irreparable harm or injury to a party before the litigation could be resolved. In Pahila-Garrido v. Tortogo,[18] we have explained the preservative or preventive character of injunction as a remedy in the course of the litigation, viz.:Generally, injunction, being a preservative remedy for the protection of substantive rights or interests, is not a cause of action in itself but merely a provisional remedy, an adjunct to a main suit. It is resorted to only when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences that cannot be redressed under any standard of compensation. The controlling reason for the existence of the judicial power to issue the writ of injunction is that the court may thereby prevent a threatened or continuous irremediable injury to some of the parties before their claims can be thoroughly investigated and advisedly adjudicated. The application for the writ rests upon an alleged existence of an emergency or of a special reason for such an order to issue before the case can be regularly heard, and the essential conditions for granting such temporary injunctive relief are that the complaint alleges facts that appear to be sufficient to constitute a cause of action for injunction and that on the entire showing from both sides, it appears, in view of all the circumstances, that the injunction is reasonably necessary to protect the legal rights of plaintiff pending the litigation.
	GR No. 189509 2015-11-23	METROPOLITAN BANK v. G & P BUILDERS LEONEN, J.
Petitioner committed a procedural error when it filed a Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals instead of filing a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The distinction is important because "[t]he remedy against an interlocutory order not subject of an appeal is an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65 [.]"[98] The reason behind the rule is to prevent multiplicity of suits:The reason for disallowing an appeal from an interlocutory order is to avoid multiplicity of appeals in a single action, which necessarily suspends the hearing and decision on the merits of the action during the pendency of the appeals. Permitting multiple appeals will necessarily delay the trial on the merits of the case for a considerable length of time, and will compel the adverse party to incur unnecessary expenses, for one of the parties may interpose as many appeals as there are incidental questions raised by him and as there are interlocutory orders rendered or issued by the lower court. An interlocutory order may be the subject of an appeal, but only after a judgment has been rendered, with the ground for appealing the order being included in the appeal of the judgment itself.[99] (Citation omitted)
	GR No. 200465 2015-04-20	JOCELYN ASISTIO Y CONSINO v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
However, the Court may set aside technicality for justifiable reasons as when the petition before it is clearly meritorious and filed on time both under Rules 45 and 65.[15] In accordance with the liberal spirit which pervades the Rules of Court and in the interest of justice, the Court may treat the petition as having been filed under Rule 45. Here, no justifiable reasons were proffered by petitioner for a more liberal interpretation of procedural rules. Although it was filed on time both under Rules 45 and 65, the petition at bench lacks substantive merit and raises only questions of law which should have been duly made in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.[16]
	GR No. 212496 2015-03-18	NESTOR BRACERO v. RODULFO ARCELO LEONEN, J.
Petitioner Nestor Bracero, through his counsel Atty. Danilo Pilapil, had several opportunities to argue his position before the courts but failed to take them. Petitioner should now be considered in estoppel from assailing the Regional Trial Court Order dated February 11, 2010 denying petitioner's Urgent Motion to Vacate the Writ of Execution, affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Also, "[t]o frustrate the winning party's right through dilatory schemes is to frustrate all the efforts, time and expenditure of the] courts, which thereby increases the costs of litigation."[83]
	GR No. 157163 2014-06-25	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. JUDGE AGAPITO L. ANOSAS BERSAMIN, J.
Every court should remember that an injunction should not be granted lightly or precipitately because it is a limitation upon the freedom of the defendant's action. It should be granted only when the court is fully satisfied that the law permits it and the emergency demands it,[50] for no power exists whose exercise is more delicate, which requires greater caution and deliberation, or is more dangerous in a doubtful case, than the issuance of an injunction.[51]
	GR No. 196894 2014-03-03	JESUS G. CRISOLOGO v. JEWM AGRO-INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION MENDOZA, J.
At any rate, the remedy against an interlocutory order, not subject of an appeal, is an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65, provided that the interlocutory order is rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Only then is certiorari under Rule 65 allowed to be resorted to.[26]
	GR No. 156407 2014-01-15	THELMA M. ARANAS v. TERESITA V. MERCADO BERSAMIN, J.
The propriety of the special civil action for certiorari as a remedy depended on whether the assailed orders of the RTC were final or interlocutory in nature. In Pahila-Garrido v. Tortogo,[16] the Court distinguished between final and interlocutory orders as follows: The distinction between a final order and an interlocutory order is well known. The first disposes of the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing more to be done except to enforce by execution what the court has determined, but the latter does not completely dispose of the case but leaves something else to be decided upon. An interlocutory order deals with preliminary matters and the trial on the merits is yet to be held and the judgment rendered. The test to ascertain whether or not an order or a judgment is interlocutory or final is: does the order or judgment leave something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case? If it does, the order or judgment is interlocutory; otherwise, it is final.
	AM No. MTJ-13-1834 2013-10-02	JESUS D. CARBAJOSA v. JUDGE HANNIBAL R. PATRICIO REYES, J.
Any delay in the full execution of a final and executory decision is repugnant to the ideal administration of justice. Hence the rule that once a judgment attains finality, it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. The enforcement of such judgment should not be hampered or evaded; for the immediate enforcement of the parties' rights, confirmed by final judgment, is a major component of the ideal administration of justice.[23] Our penal laws and rules of procedure, in particular, enjoin that when the judgment of conviction is already final and executory its execution is ministerial.[24]
	GR No. 191247 2013-07-10	FRANCISCO L. ROSARIO v. LELLANI DE GUZMAN MENDOZA, J.
Indeed, on several occasions, this Court has allowed a petition to prosper despite the utilization of an improper remedy with the reasoning that the inflexibility or rigidity of the application of the rules of procedure must give way to serve the higher ends of justice. The strict application of procedural technicalities should not hinder the speedy disposition of the case on the merits.[12] Thus, this Court deems it expedient to consider this petition as having been filed under Rule 65.
	GR No. 170038 2012-07-11	CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. SPS. HARRY CIRIACO AND ESTHER CIRIACO BRION, J.
A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action prior to the judgment or final order requiring a party or a court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts.[27] It is the "strong arm of equity,"[28] an extraordinary peremptory remedy that must be used with extreme caution,[29] affecting as it does the respective rights of the parties.[30]
	GR No. 170038 2012-07-11	CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. SPS. HARRY CIRIACO AND ESTHER CIRIACO BRION, J.
Every court should remember that an injunction is a limitation upon the freedom of the defendant's action and should not be granted lightly or precipitately. It should be granted only when the court is fully satisfied that the law permits it and the emergency demands it;[37] no power exists whose exercise is more delicate, which requires greater caution and deliberation, or is more dangerous in a doubtful case, than the issuance of an injunction.[38]
	GR No. 192737 2012-04-25	NEMIA CASTRO v. ROSALYN GUEVARRA MENDOZA, J.
A motion for reconsideration is a condition precedent to the filing of a petition for certiorari. However, the Court has recognized exceptions to the requirement, such as: (a) when it is necessary to prevent irreparable damages and injury to a party; (b) where the trial judge capriciously and whimsically exercised his judgment; (c) where there may be danger of a failure of justice; (d) where an appeal would be slow, inadequate, and insufficient; (e) where the issue raised is one purely of law; (f) where public interest is involved; and (g) in case of urgency.[26] The circumstances obtaining in this case definitely placed Castro's recourse under most of the above exceptions particularly because Judge Mangrobang ordered a new trial in the March 23, 2007 Order.[27]
	GR No. 158239 2012-01-25	PRISCILLA ALMA JOSE v. RAMON C. JAVELLANA BERSAMIN, J.
First of all, the denial of Javellana's motion for reconsideration left nothing more to be done by the RTC because it confirmed the dismissal of Civil Case No. 79-M-97. It was clearly a final order, not an interlocutory one. The Court has distinguished between final and interlocutory orders in Pahila-Garrido v. Tortogo,[22] thuswise: The distinction between a final order and an interlocutory order is well known. The first disposes of the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing more to be done except to enforce by execution what the court has determined, but the latter does not completely dispose of the case but leaves something else to be decided upon. An interlocutory order deals with preliminary matters and the trial on the merits is yet to be held and the judgment rendered. The test to ascertain whether or not an order or a judgment is interlocutory or final is: does the order or judgment leave something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case? If it does, the order or judgment is interlocutory; otherwise, it is final.

ANGELINA PAHILA-GARRIDO v. ELIZA M. TORTOGO