This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2000-02-03 |
PURISIMA, J. |
||||
| It should be stressed, moreover, that P.D. 385 should only be invoked after the factual basis for its application has been laid through the presentation of evidence in a trial on the merits. It cannot be applied automatically.[45] It is noteworthy, too, that the TRO was issued on June 14, 1985, the same day the motion to admit the supplemental pleading was filed, while the directive to maintain the status quo ante litem was incorporated in the order of August 20, 1985 or more than two (2) months after the issuance of the restraining order. By force of law, the TRO expired on the 20th day after notice of the June 14, 1985 TRO. It is evident therefore that respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in extending the lifetime of the restraining order that had in the meantime expired, by issuing another order in violation of B.P. Blg. 224. As such, the second order of August 20, 1985 as far as it ordered the return to the status quo ante litem is concerned, is a "patent nullity"[46] because the 20-day lifetime of a restraining order is non-extendible.[47] The court is without discretion to extend such period considering the mandatory tenor of the Rule.[48] | |||||