This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-12-11 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| With the intervening rendition of the decision on the merits, the challenge against the interlocutory orders of the RTC designed to prevent the RTC from proceeding with the pre-trial and the trial on the merits was rendered moot and academic. In other words, any determination of the issue on the interlocutory orders was left without any practical value.[26] A case that is moot and academic because of supervening events ceases to present any justiciable controversy. The courts of law will not determine moot and academic questions, for they should not engage in academic declarations and determine moot questions.[27] | |||||
|
2012-03-21 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| It bears stressing that to be entitled to an injunctive writ, the right to be protected and the violation against that right must be shown. A writ of preliminary injunction may be issued only upon clear showing of an actual existing right to be protected during the pendency of the principal action.[33] When the complainant's right or title is doubtful or disputed, he does not have a clear legal right and, therefore, the issuance of injunctive relief is not proper.[34] | |||||