This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-10-12 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| A writ of injunction will lie upon proof that the applicant is entitled to the relief.[7] For the writ to issue here, forever barring PDCP from collecting on the loan security, petitioners must prove the nullity of the mortgage contract. As an accessory contract, the mortgage agreement derives its validity from the principal contract of loan.[8] Petitioners assail the validity of the loan agreement on the sole ground that PDCP delayed the release of the loan proceeds. This argument is analytically weak, factually baseless, and legally indefensible. | |||||
|
2007-02-13 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| Petitioners rely on Filipinas Marble Corporation (FMC) v. Court of Appeals[40] to bolster their position that the trial court committed manifest abuse and gravely abused its discretion in denying the issuance of the prayed for injunctive writ. | |||||
|
2000-02-03 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| PD 385 was issued primarily to ensure that government financial institutions are not denied substantial cash inflows necessary to finance development projects in the country by large borrowers who, when they become delinquent, resort to court actions to prevent or delay the government's collection of their debts and loans. But the seemingly peremptory application of PD 385 must always be tempered with the basic principles of fairness and decency under the due process clause of the Bill of Rights. In other words, PD 385, for all its good intentions, does not provide the government with blanket authority to unqualifiedly impose the mandatory provisions of the Decree.[18] In fine, APT cannot insist that PD 385 be applied and the foreclosure of DOMSAT's chattel mortgage be not stopped by injunction when precisely the very propriety of said foreclosure is in serious doubt. | |||||