Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ELIAS BORROMEO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR NOS. 153745-46 2015-10-14	NEMENCIO C. PULUMBARIT v. CA JARDELEZA, J.
Aggrieved, Pulumbarit filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA to nullify the writs of execution and injunction issued by the trial court, with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or a writ of preliminary injunction.[32] This case was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 61873.
	GR NOS. 153745-46 2015-10-14	NEMENCIO C. PULUMBARIT v. CA JARDELEZA, J.
The trial court, upon Pascual et al.'s motion, allowed the execution of its Decision pending Pulumbarit's appeal of the same with the CA.[45] When the CA (in CA-G.R. SP No. 61873) issued writs against said discretionary execution, Pascual et al. filed a motion seeking to do exactly that what the court has already enjoined, albeit this time before the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 69931. This act, according to Pulumbarit, constitutes "a specie (sic) of deliberate and willful forum-shopping"[46] which should not be countenanced by this Court.
	GR NOS. 153745-46 2015-10-14	NEMENCIO C. PULUMBARIT v. CA JARDELEZA, J.
Strictly speaking, Pascual et al. did not commit forum shopping. Forum shopping exists when the elements of litis pendentia are present, or when a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another.[47] Here, any action by the CA on Pascual et al.'s motion in CA-G.R. CV No. 69931 is provisional in nature, such that it can in no way constitute as res judicata in CA-G.R. SP No. 61873. Moreover, forum shopping requires the identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought in two or more pending cases.[48] Mere, there is no identity of relief and/or cause of action. CA-G.R. SP No. 61873 is limited to a determination of whether grave abuse of discretion was committed by the trial court in granting execution pending appeal while Pascual et al.'s motion in CA-G.R. CV No. 69931 involves a determination by the CA whether there are "good reasons" warranting the grant of discretionary execution.
	GR NOS. 153745-46 2015-10-14	NEMENCIO C. PULUMBARIT v. CA JARDELEZA, J.
After the conduct of oral arguments, the CA in CA G.R. SP No. 61873 issued a TRO on January 26, 2001[33] and thereafter a writ of preliminary injunction on March 28, 2001.[34] Despite this, however, Pascual et al, on May 11, 2001, filed a motion in CA-G.R. CV No. 69931 seeking execution of the trial court's Decision pending Pulumbarit's appeal.[35] Meanwhile, CA-G.R. SP No. 61873 and CA-G.R. CV No. 69931 were ordered consolidated on November 5, 2001.[36]
	GR NOS. 153745-46 2015-10-14	NEMENCIO C. PULUMBARIT v. CA JARDELEZA, J.
Here, the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 61873 issued the TRO and the writ of preliminary injunction against the discretionary execution on January 26, 2001 and March 28, 2001, respectively.[51] On April 16, 2001, Pulumbarit posted the required bond amounting to P500,000.00.[52] Pascual et al., on the other hand, filed their motion for execution pending appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 69931 on May 11, 2001, nearly four months after the issuance of the TRO, two months after the writ of injunction and almost a month from Pulumbarit's posting of the bond.
	GR NOS. 153745-46 2015-10-14	NEMENCIO C. PULUMBARIT v. CA JARDELEZA, J.
Granting, for the sake of argument, that there was some oversight in relation to the observance of the RIRCA procedure, Pulumbarit nevertheless failed to establish an actionable wrong separate from the alleged breach of the said internal rules. Contrary to what he would have this Court believe, we are convinced that there was no denial of Pulumbarit's right to due process. The record clearly shows that Pulumbarit was given (and, in fact, availed of) every opportunity to present his case, by way of both pleadings and oral arguments, and pursue the appropriate reliefs before the CA. As in fact, the CA issued, in his favor, a TRO on January 26, 2001[59] and a writ of preliminary injunction on March 28, 2001.[60]
	GR NOS. 153745-46 2015-10-14	NEMENCIO C. PULUMBARIT v. CA JARDELEZA, J.
Aside from being heard in oral argument, Pulumbarit also filed with the CA several other pleadings, including (a) a Respectful Reiteration of the Application for a TRO and or Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated January 15, 2001 ;[61] (b) Petitioner's Memorandum in Summation of the Points raised in the Oral Arguments of February 27, 2001 and in Refutation of the Arguments of Private Respondents dated March 5, 2001 as his Memorandum of Authorities.[62] Clearly, there was no denial of his right to due process.