Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SECOND DIVISION AUSTRALIAN PROFESSIONAL REALTY v. MUNICIPALITY OF PADRE GARCIA BATANGAS PROVINCE

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 181789 2016-02-03	GMA NETWORK v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION BRION, J.
To be entitled to the injunctive writ, the petitioner must show that (1) there exists a clear and unmistakable right to be protected; (2) this right is directly threatened by an act sought to be enjoined; (3) the invasion of the right is material and substantial; and (4) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious and irreparable damage.[55]
	GR No. 195547 2015-12-02	MA. CORAZON M. OLA v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
In the present case, the Court agrees with the contention of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) that the assailed Resolutions of the CA are interlocutory orders, as they do not dispose of the case completely but leave something to be decided upon.[19] What has been denied by the CA was a mere motion to amend petitioner's appeal brief and the appellate court has yet to finally dispose of petitioner's appeal by determining the main issue of whether or not she is indeed guilty of estafa. As such, petitioner's resort to the present petition for review on certiorari is erroneous.
	GR No. 196864 2015-07-08	SPS. VICTOR P. DULNUAN AND JACQUELINE P. DULNUAN v. METROPOLITAN BANK PEREZ, J.
A writ of preliminary injunction and a TRO are injunctive reliefs and preservative remedies for the protection of substantive rights and interests. An application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or TRO may be granted upon the filing of a verified application showing facts entitling the applicant to the relief demanded.[14] The purpose of injunction is to prevent threatened or continuous irremediable injury to some of the parties before their claims can be thoroughly studied and educated. Its sole aim is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case is heard fully.[15]
	GR No. 215764 2015-07-06	RICHARD K. TOM v. SAMUEL N. RODRIGUEZ PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
As the existence of grave abuse of discretion in this case relates to the propriety of issuing a TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction, which, by nature, are injunctive reliefs and preservative remedies for the protection of substantive rights and interests, it is important to lay down the issuance’s requisites, namely: (1) there exists a clear and unmistakable right to be protected; (2) this right is directly threatened by an act sought to be enjoined; (3) the invasion of the right is material and substantial; and (4) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious and irreparable damage.[44] Case law holds that the issuance of an injunctive writ rests upon the sound discretion of the court that took cognizance of the case; as such, the exercise of judicial discretion by a court in injunctive matters must not be interfered with, except when there is grave abuse of discretion.[45]
	AM No. RTJ-11-2259 2013-10-22	MA. REGINA S. PERALTA v. JUDGE GEORGE E. OMELIO PER CURIAM
An order granting or denying an application for preliminary injunction is interlocutory in nature.[52] The November 7, 2008 order denying the application for a writ of preliminary injunction is not a final order, and hence the association's filing of a second motion for reconsideration of the said order, is not prohibited. Being an interlocutory order which is not appealable,[53] respondent's subsequent order granting the application for preliminary injunction may be challenged in a petition for certiorari before the CA. Mendoza, however, opted to file this administrative complaint which contained no allegation that he had availed of the aforesaid remedy to set aside the writ issued by respondent.
	AM No. RTJ-11-2259 2013-10-22	MA. REGINA S. PERALTA v. JUDGE GEORGE E. OMELIO PER CURIAM
We reiterate the rule that the filing of an administrative complaint is not the proper remedy for correcting the actions of a judge perceived to have gone beyond the norms of propriety, where a sufficient remedy exists.[54] The actions against judges should not be considered as complementary or suppletory to, or substitute for, the judicial remedies which can be availed of by a party in a case.[55] Moreover, the grant or denial of a writ of preliminary injunction in a pending case rests on the sound discretion of the court taking cognizance of the case, since the assessment and evaluation of evidence towards that end involves findings of fact left to the said court for its conclusive determination. Hence, the exercise of judicial discretion by a court in injunctive matters must not be interfered with, except when there is grave abuse of discretion.[56]
	GR No. 167174 2013-09-23	SPS. CARMELITO v. CA DEL CASTILLO, J.
Besides, it has been held that the trial court (or the CA in this case) has a wide latitude in determining the propriety of issuing a Writ of Preliminary Injunction. The assessment and evaluation of evidence in the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction involve findings of facts ordinarily left to it for its determination. Hence, absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, the trial court's disposition in injunctive matters is not generally interfered with by the appellate courts.[91]