Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EMERITO M. RAMOS v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 190112 2015-04-22	PRIMO CO v. PHILIPPINE CANINE CLUB BRION, J.
It is a well-established rule that consummated acts can no longer be restrained by injunction.[14] When the acts sought to be prevented by injunction or prohibition have already been performed or completed prior to the filing of the injunction suit, nothing more can be enjoined or restrained;[15] a writ of injunction then becomes moot and academic,[16] and the court, by mere issuance of the writ, can no longer stop or undo the act. To do so would violate the sole purpose of a prohibitive injunction, that is, to preserve the status quo.
	GR No. 165887 2011-06-06	MAJORITY STOCKHOLDERS OF RUBY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. MIGUEL LIM VILLARAMA, JR., J.
On the issue of violation of the rule against forum shopping, the CA held that this is not applicable because the parties in CA-G.R. SP No. 73169 (filed by MANCOM) and CA-G.R. SP No. 73195 (filed by Lim) are not the same and they do not have the same interest. This issue was in fact already resolved in G.R. Nos. 124185-87 wherein this Court, citing Ramos, Sr. v. Court of Appeals[47] declared that private respondents Lim, the unsecured creditors (ALFC) and MANCOM cannot be considered to have engaged in forum shopping in filing separate petitions with the CA as each have distinct rights to protect.
	GR NO. 147923 2007-10-26	JIMMY T. GO v. ALBERTO T. LOOYUKO VELASCO, JR., J.
The established principle is that when the events sought to be prevented by injunction or prohibition have already happened, nothing more could be enjoined or prohibited.[62] Indeed, it is a universal principle of law that an injunction will not issue to restrain the performance of an act already done. This is so, for the simple reason that nothing more can be done in reference thereto.[63] A writ of injunction becomes moot and academic after the act sought to be enjoined has already been consummated.[64]