Lawyerly

GR No. 184045

2014-01-22

SPS. NICASIO C. MARQUEZ AND ANITA J. MARQUEZ v. SPS. CARLITO ALINDOG AND CARMEN ALINDOG

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

That said, the RTC therefore gravely abused its discretion when it issued the injunctive writ which enjoined Sps. Marquez from taking possession of the subject property. To be sure, grave abuse of discretion arises when a lower court or tribunal patently violates the Constitution, the law or existing jurisprudence.[49] Here, while the RTC had initially issued a writ of possession in favor of Sps. Marquez, it defied existing jurisprudence when it effectively rescinded the said writ by subsequently granting Sps. Alindog's prayer for injunctive relief. The RTC's finding anent the initial evidence adduced by Sps. Alindog constitutes improper basis to justify the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction in their favor since, in the first place, it had no authority to exercise any discretion in this respect. Jurisprudence is clear on the matter: without the exception under Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules availing, the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the purchaser of an extra-judicially foreclosed property such as Sps. Marquez in this case should come as a matter of course, and, in such regard, constitutes only a ministerial duty on the part of the court. Besides, it was improper for the RTC to have issued a writ of preliminary injunction since the act sought to be enjoined, i.e., the implementation of the writ of possession, had already been accomplished in the interim and thus, rendered the matter moot. Case law instructs that injunction would not lie where the acts sought to be enjoined had already become fait accompli (meaning, an accomplished or consummated act).[50] Hence, since the consummation of the act sought to be restrained had rendered Sps. Alindog's injunction petition moot, the issuance of the said injunctive writ was altogether improper.

GR No. 181163

2013-07-24

ASIAN TERMINALS v. PHILAM INSURANCE CO.

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

A letter of credit is a financial device developed by merchants as a convenient and relatively safe mode of dealing with sales of goods to satisfy the seemingly irreconcilable interests of a seller, who refuses to part with his goods before he is paid, and a buyer, who wants to have control of his goods before paying.[44] However, letters of credit are employed by the parties desiring to enter into commercial transactions, not for the benefit of the issuing bank but mainly for the benefit of the parties to the original transaction,[45] in these cases, Nichimen Corporation as the seller and Universal Motors as the buyer. Hence, the latter, as the buyer of the Nissan CKD parts, should be regarded as the person entitled to delivery of the goods. Accordingly, for purposes of reckoning when notice of loss or damage should be given to the carrier or its agent, the date of delivery to Universal Motors is controlling.

GR No. 177130

2011-06-07

EDUARDO ERMITA IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY v. JENNY LIND R. ALDECOA-DELORINO

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Transfield Philippines, Inc. v. Luzon Hydro Corporation, [13] illuminates on the right of a party to injunctive relief: Before a writ of preliminary injunction may be issued, there must be a clear showing by the complaint that there exists a right to be protected and that the acts against which the writ is to be directed are violative of the said right. 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. Moreover, an injunctive remedy may only be resorted to when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences which cannot be remedied under any standard compensation. (emphasis supplied)

GR No. 149193

2011-04-04

RICARDO B. BANGAYAN v. RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION

SERENO, J.

What must be underscored in respondent RCBC's immediate action of applying petitioner Bangayan's account to the Lotec Marketing is the nature of the loan instrument used in this case a letter of credit. In a letter of credit, the engagement of the issuing bank (respondent RCBC in this instance) is to pay the seller or beneficiary of the credit (or the advising bank, Korean Exchange Bank, in this instance) once the draft and the required documents are presented to it. [118] This "independence principle" in letters of credit assures the seller or the beneficiary of prompt payment independent of any breach of the main contract and precludes the issuing bank from determining whether the main contract is actually accomplished or not. [119]

GR No. 176657

2010-09-01

DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS v. FRANCO T. FALCON

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

We reiterated this point in Transfield Philippines, Inc. v. Luzon Hydro Corporation,[78] where we likewise opined: Before a writ of preliminary injunction may be issued, there must be a clear showing by the complaint that there exists a right to be protected and that the acts against which the writ is to be directed are violative of the said right. 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. Moreover, an injunctive remedy may only be resorted to when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences which cannot be remedied under any standard compensation. (Emphasis supplied.)

GR No. 142896

2007-09-12

CANELAND SUGAR CORPORATION v. REYNALDO M. ALON

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Without first resolving the foregoing issue, the Court finds that the petition should be denied for the sole reason that the act sought to be enjoined by petitioner is already fait accompli. In Transfield Philippines, Inc. v. Luzon Hydro Corporation,[9] the Court held that -

GR NO. 169116

2007-03-28

BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. SPS. IRENEO M. SANTIAGO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

An injunction is a preservative remedy for the protection of one's substantive right or interest; it is not a cause of action by itself but merely a provisional remedy, an adjunct to the main suit.[25] 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.[26]

GR NO. 157318

2006-08-09

GENEROSO V. VILLANUEVA v. STATE OF GERARDO L. GONZAGA

PUNO, J.

The records show that the lots were finally released from mortgage in July 1991. Petitioners have always expressed readiness to pay the balance of the purchase price once that is achieved. Hence, petitioners should be allowed to pay the balance now, if they so desire, since it is established that respondents' demand for them to pay in April 1991 was premature. However, petitioners may not demand production by the respondents of the titles to the lots as a condition for their payment. It was not required under the MOA. The MOA merely states that petitioners shall pay the balance "upon approval by the PNB of the release of the lots" from mortgage. Petitioners may not add further conditions now. Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith.[20]

GR NO. 161811

2006-04-12

CITY OF BAGUIO v. FRANCISCO NIÑO

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Petitioners' invocation of the City Mayor's authority under Sec. 455(b) 3(vi) of the Local Government Code to order the demolition or removal of an illegally constructed house, building, or structure within the period prescribed by law or ordinance and their allegation that respondents' structures were constructed without building permits[30] were not raised before the trial court. Petitioners having, for the first time, invoked said section of the Local Government Code and respondents' lack of building entry permits in their Motion for Reconsideration of the Court of Appeals' decision, it was correctly denied of merit,[31] it being settled that matters, theories or arguments not brought out in the proceedings below will ordinarily not be considered by a reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.[32]

GR NO. 161865

2005-03-10

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. MONET’S EXPORT

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Banks assume no liability or responsibility for the form, sufficiency, accuracy, genuineness, falsification or legal effect of any documents, or for the general and/or particular conditions stipulated in the documents or superimposed thereon; nor do they assume any liability or responsibility for the description, weight, quality, condition, packing, delivery, value or existence of the goods represented by any documents, or for the good faith or acts and/or omissions, solvency, performance or standing of the consignor, the carriers, or the insurers of the goods, or any other person whomsoever. (Emphasis supplied) In Transfield Philippines, Inc. v. Luzon Hydro Corporation, et al.,[22] we held that the engagement of the issuing bank is to pay the seller or beneficiary of the credit once the draft and the required documents are presented to it. The so-called "independence principle" assures the seller or the beneficiary of prompt payment independent of any breach of the main contract and precludes the issuing bank from determining whether the main contract is actually accomplished or not.

	GR No. 184045 2014-01-22	SPS. NICASIO C. MARQUEZ AND ANITA J. MARQUEZ v. SPS. CARLITO ALINDOG AND CARMEN ALINDOG PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
That said, the RTC therefore gravely abused its discretion when it issued the injunctive writ which enjoined Sps. Marquez from taking possession of the subject property. To be sure, grave abuse of discretion arises when a lower court or tribunal patently violates the Constitution, the law or existing jurisprudence.[49] Here, while the RTC had initially issued a writ of possession in favor of Sps. Marquez, it defied existing jurisprudence when it effectively rescinded the said writ by subsequently granting Sps. Alindog's prayer for injunctive relief. The RTC's finding anent the initial evidence adduced by Sps. Alindog constitutes improper basis to justify the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction in their favor since, in the first place, it had no authority to exercise any discretion in this respect. Jurisprudence is clear on the matter: without the exception under Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules availing, the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the purchaser of an extra-judicially foreclosed property such as Sps. Marquez in this case should come as a matter of course, and, in such regard, constitutes only a ministerial duty on the part of the court. Besides, it was improper for the RTC to have issued a writ of preliminary injunction since the act sought to be enjoined, i.e., the implementation of the writ of possession, had already been accomplished in the interim and thus, rendered the matter moot. Case law instructs that injunction would not lie where the acts sought to be enjoined had already become fait accompli (meaning, an accomplished or consummated act).[50] Hence, since the consummation of the act sought to be restrained had rendered Sps. Alindog's injunction petition moot, the issuance of the said injunctive writ was altogether improper.
	GR No. 181163 2013-07-24	ASIAN TERMINALS v. PHILAM INSURANCE CO. VILLARAMA, JR., J.
A letter of credit is a financial device developed by merchants as a convenient and relatively safe mode of dealing with sales of goods to satisfy the seemingly irreconcilable interests of a seller, who refuses to part with his goods before he is paid, and a buyer, who wants to have control of his goods before paying.[44] However, letters of credit are employed by the parties desiring to enter into commercial transactions, not for the benefit of the issuing bank but mainly for the benefit of the parties to the original transaction,[45] in these cases, Nichimen Corporation as the seller and Universal Motors as the buyer. Hence, the latter, as the buyer of the Nissan CKD parts, should be regarded as the person entitled to delivery of the goods. Accordingly, for purposes of reckoning when notice of loss or damage should be given to the carrier or its agent, the date of delivery to Universal Motors is controlling.
	GR No. 177130 2011-06-07	EDUARDO ERMITA IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY v. JENNY LIND R. ALDECOA-DELORINO CARPIO MORALES, J.
Transfield Philippines, Inc. v. Luzon Hydro Corporation, [13] illuminates on the right of a party to injunctive relief: Before a writ of preliminary injunction may be issued, there must be a clear showing by the complaint that there exists a right to be protected and that the acts against which the writ is to be directed are violative of the said right. 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. Moreover, an injunctive remedy may only be resorted to when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences which cannot be remedied under any standard compensation. (emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 149193 2011-04-04	RICARDO B. BANGAYAN v. RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION SERENO, J.
What must be underscored in respondent RCBC's immediate action of applying petitioner Bangayan's account to the Lotec Marketing is the nature of the loan instrument used in this case a letter of credit. In a letter of credit, the engagement of the issuing bank (respondent RCBC in this instance) is to pay the seller or beneficiary of the credit (or the advising bank, Korean Exchange Bank, in this instance) once the draft and the required documents are presented to it. [118] This "independence principle" in letters of credit assures the seller or the beneficiary of prompt payment independent of any breach of the main contract and precludes the issuing bank from determining whether the main contract is actually accomplished or not. [119]
	GR No. 176657 2010-09-01	DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS v. FRANCO T. FALCON LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We reiterated this point in Transfield Philippines, Inc. v. Luzon Hydro Corporation,[78] where we likewise opined: Before a writ of preliminary injunction may be issued, there must be a clear showing by the complaint that there exists a right to be protected and that the acts against which the writ is to be directed are violative of the said right. 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. Moreover, an injunctive remedy may only be resorted to when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences which cannot be remedied under any standard compensation. (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 142896 2007-09-12	CANELAND SUGAR CORPORATION v. REYNALDO M. ALON AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Without first resolving the foregoing issue, the Court finds that the petition should be denied for the sole reason that the act sought to be enjoined by petitioner is already fait accompli. In Transfield Philippines, Inc. v. Luzon Hydro Corporation,[9] the Court held that -
	GR NO. 169116 2007-03-28	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. SPS. IRENEO M. SANTIAGO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
An injunction is a preservative remedy for the protection of one's substantive right or interest; it is not a cause of action by itself but merely a provisional remedy, an adjunct to the main suit.[25] 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.[26]
	GR NO. 157318 2006-08-09	GENEROSO V. VILLANUEVA v. STATE OF GERARDO L. GONZAGA PUNO, J.
The records show that the lots were finally released from mortgage in July 1991. Petitioners have always expressed readiness to pay the balance of the purchase price once that is achieved. Hence, petitioners should be allowed to pay the balance now, if they so desire, since it is established that respondents' demand for them to pay in April 1991 was premature. However, petitioners may not demand production by the respondents of the titles to the lots as a condition for their payment. It was not required under the MOA. The MOA merely states that petitioners shall pay the balance "upon approval by the PNB of the release of the lots" from mortgage. Petitioners may not add further conditions now. Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith.[20]
	GR NO. 161811 2006-04-12	CITY OF BAGUIO v. FRANCISCO NIÑO CARPIO MORALES, J.
Petitioners' invocation of the City Mayor's authority under Sec. 455(b) 3(vi) of the Local Government Code to order the demolition or removal of an illegally constructed house, building, or structure within the period prescribed by law or ordinance and their allegation that respondents' structures were constructed without building permits[30] were not raised before the trial court. Petitioners having, for the first time, invoked said section of the Local Government Code and respondents' lack of building entry permits in their Motion for Reconsideration of the Court of Appeals' decision, it was correctly denied of merit,[31] it being settled that matters, theories or arguments not brought out in the proceedings below will ordinarily not be considered by a reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.[32]
	GR NO. 161865 2005-03-10	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. MONET’S EXPORT YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Banks assume no liability or responsibility for the form, sufficiency, accuracy, genuineness, falsification or legal effect of any documents, or for the general and/or particular conditions stipulated in the documents or superimposed thereon; nor do they assume any liability or responsibility for the description, weight, quality, condition, packing, delivery, value or existence of the goods represented by any documents, or for the good faith or acts and/or omissions, solvency, performance or standing of the consignor, the carriers, or the insurers of the goods, or any other person whomsoever. (Emphasis supplied) In Transfield Philippines, Inc. v. Luzon Hydro Corporation, et al.,[22] we held that the engagement of the issuing bank is to pay the seller or beneficiary of the credit once the draft and the required documents are presented to it. The so-called "independence principle" assures the seller or the beneficiary of prompt payment independent of any breach of the main contract and precludes the issuing bank from determining whether the main contract is actually accomplished or not.

TRANSFIELD PHILIPPINES v. LUZON HYDRO CORPORATION