Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PARENTS-TEACHERS ASSOCIATION OF ST. MATHEW CHRISTIAN ACADEMY v. METROPOLITAN BANK

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 172504 2013-07-31	DONNA C. NAGTALON v. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK BRION, J.
The petitioner's contention is unmeritorious. We note that the ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession under Sections 6 and 7 of Act 3135 is not, strictly speaking, a "judicial process." As discussed in Idolor v. Court of appeals,[35] it is not an ordinary suit by which one party "sues another for the enforcement of a wrong or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong."[36] Being ex parte, it is a non-litigious proceeding where the relief is granted without requiring an opportunity for the person against whom the relief is sought to be heard.
	GR No. 148843 2012-09-05	ANTIOQUIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. BENJAMIN P. RABACAL VILLARAMA, JR., J.
We stress that equity, which has been aptly described as "justice outside legality," is applied only in the absence of, and never against, statutory law or judicial rules of procedure. Positive rules prevail over all abstract arguments based on equity contra legem.[20] For all its conceded merit, equity is available only in the absence of law and not as its replacement.[21] The CA thus erred in applying equity to favor the grant of disturbance compensation which has no basis in law.
	GR No. 173820 2012-04-16	PRODUCERS BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. EXCELSA INDUSTRIES PERALTA, J.
A special civil action for certiorari could be availed of only if a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[28] It has been repeatedly held in a number of cases[29] that the remedy of a party from the trial court's order granting the issuance of a writ of possession is to file a petition to set aside the sale and cancel the writ of possession, and the aggrieved party may then appeal from the order denying or granting said petition.[30] When a writ of possession had already been issued as in this case,[31] the proper remedy is an appeal and not a petition for certiorari.[32] To be sure, the trial court's order granting the writ of possession is final.[33] The soundness of the order granting the writ of possession is a matter of judgment, with respect to which the remedy of the party aggrieved is ordinary appeal.[34] As respondent availed of the wrong remedy, the appellate court erred in not dismissing outright the petition for certiorari.