Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PDCP DEVELOPMENT BANK v. JUDGE AUGUSTINE A. VESTIL

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 183658 2013-04-10	ROYAL SAVINGS BANK v. FERNANDO ASIA SERENO, C.J.
No court has the power to interfere by injunction in the issuance or enforcement of a writ of possession issued by another court of concurrent jurisdiction having the power to issue that writ.[30] However, as correctly pointed out by respondents in their Comment, it was the same trial court and "not another court or co-equal court body that quashed the subject writ of possession."[31] The pairing judge, who issued the Order quashing the Writ of Possession, issued it in her capacity as the judge of Branch 222 of Quezon City the same branch, albeit then under a different judge, that issued the Writ of Possession.
	AM No. RTJ-06-2030 2007-10-05	OCA v. JUDGE AUGUSTINE A. VESTIL AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
This is not Judge Vestil's first administrative infraction. In PDCP Development Bank v. Vestil,[65] Judge Vestil was fined in the amount of P5,000.00 and warned for issuing in grave abuse of discretion a writ of preliminary injunction in interference with the implementation of an order of another court of co-equal jurisdiction. In Sanchez v. Vestil,[66] he was suspended from office for one year without pay and fined P50,000.00 for gross dereliction of duty and grave misconduct for failing to resolve 114 cases within the reglementary period and to report such fact faithfully.
	GR NO. 148630 2006-06-20	ANGELO DWIGHT PENSON v. SPS. MELCHOR AND VIRGINIA MARANAN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Jurisprudence is also replete with the rule that no court has the power to interfere by injunction with issuance or enforcement of a writ of possession issued by another court of concurrent jurisdiction having the power to issue such writ.[19]
	GR No. 130228 2004-07-27	BERNABE FOSTER-GALLEGO v. SPS. ROMEO AND VIVIEN GALANG CARPIO, J.
The issues petitioner raised would also necessarily require the trial court to review the decision of another regional trial court. This is plainly beyond the powers of the trial court. Under the doctrine of non-interference, a trial court has no authority to interfere with the proceedings of a court of equal jurisdiction,[37] much less to annul the final judgment of a co-equal court.[38] The Court held in Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. v. Alejo[39] that an action for quieting of title is not the appropriate remedy where the action would require the court hearing it to modify or interfere with the judgment or order of another co-equal court.
	GR No. 126731 2002-07-11	ESTEBAN YAU v. MANILA BANKING CORPORATION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Branch 6. "The garnishment of property operates as an attachment and fastens upon the property a lien by which the property is brought under the jurisdiction of the court issuing the writ. It is brought into custodia legis, under the sole control of such court. A court which has control of such property, exercises exclusive jurisdiction over the same, retains all incidents relative to the conduct of such property. No court, except one having supervisory control or superior jurisdiction in the premises, has a right to interfere with and change that possession".[29] Thus, the doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference[30] in the regular orders or judgments of a co-equal court, as an accepted axiom in adjective law, serves as an insurmountable barrier to the
	GR No. 130326 2001-11-29	COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. CA DE LEON, JR., J.
Hence, nothing can be clearer than that Judge Rapatalo had indeed issued the questioned writ of preliminary injunction with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction for the blatant disregard of the basic precept that no court has the power to interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders of a co-equal and coordinate court of concurrent jurisdiction having the power to grant the relief sought by injunction.[40]