This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-08-11 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The foregoing order is not addressed to the Caloocan City RTC. Neither can it be inferred from the language thereof that the Quezon City RTC intended to enjoin the Caloocan City RTC from further proceeding with the Recovery case. The order merely mentions the Caloocan City MeTCs. Nothing more. But more importantly, the Quezon City RTC could not have validly enjoined the Caloocan City RTC without violating the doctrine that no court has the power to interfere by injunction with the judgments or decrees of a court of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction.[55] Spouses Ching v. Court of Appeals[56] justifies this rule in this manner: Beginning with the case of Orais v. Escaño, down to the subsequent cases of Nuñez v. Low, Cabigao v. del Rosario, Hubahib v. Insular Drug Co., Inc., National Power Corp. v. De Veyra, Luciano v. Provincial Governor, De Leon v. Hon. Judge Salvador, Cojuangco v. Villegas, Darwin v. Tokonaga, we laid down the long standing doctrine that no court has the power to interfere by injunction with the judgments or decrees of a court of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction. The various trial courts of a province or city, having the same or equal authority, should not, cannot, and are not permitted to interfere with their respective cases, much less with their orders or judgments. A contrary rule would obviously lead to confusion and seriously hamper the administration of justice. (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2010-08-08 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The issuance of a preliminary injunction rests entirely within the discretion of the court taking cognizance of the case and is generally not interfered with except in cases of manifest abuse.[20] For the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction to be proper, it must be shown that the invasion of the right sought to be protected is material and substantial, that the right of complainant is clear and unmistakable and that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. In the absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of a writ of injunction constitutes grave abuse of discretion.[21] | |||||
|
2003-08-15 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| It has been consistently held that the issuance of a writ of possession is a ministerial function.[10] The order for a writ of possession issues as a matter of course upon the filing of the proper motion and the approval of the corresponding bond.[11] The court neither exercises its official discretion nor judgment. If only to stress the writ's ministerial character, we have, in previous cases, disallowed injunction to prohibit its issuance, just as we have held that issuance of the same may not be stayed by a pending action for annulment of mortgage or the foreclosure itself.[12] | |||||
|
2002-08-01 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In several cases,[15] the Court has ruled that the issuance of a writ of possession is a ministerial function. "The order for a writ of possession issues as a matter of course upon the filing of the proper motion and the approval of the | |||||