Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. DAISY AND SOCRATES M. AREVALO v. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 181892 2015-09-08	REPUBLIC v. JESUS M. MUPAS BRION, J.
An actual case or controversy exists when there is a conflict of legal rights or an assertion of opposite legal claims between the parties that is susceptible or ripe for judicial resolution.[382] A justiciable controversy must not be moot and academic or have no practical use or value. In other words, there must be a definite and concrete dispute touching on the legal relations of the parties who have adverse legal interests. Otherwise, the Court would simply render an advisory opinion on what the law would be on a hypothetical state of facts. The disposition of the case would not have any practical use or value as there is no actual substantial relief to which the applicant would be entitled to and which would be negated by the dismissal or denial of the petition.[383]
	GR No. 198426 2015-09-02	REPUBLIC v. PRINCIPALIA MANAGEMENT DEL CASTILLO, J.
"A case becomes moot and academic when, by virtue of supervening events, there is no more actual controversy between the parties and no useful purpose can be served in passing upon the merits."[25] In Arevalo v. Planters Development Bank,[26] the Court expounded: The Constitution provides that judicial power 'includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable.' The exercise of judicial power requires an actual case calling for it. The courts have no authority to pass upon issues through advisory opinions, or to resolve hypothetical or feigned problems or friendly suits collusively arranged between parties without real adverse interests. Furthermore, courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest, however intellectually challenging. As a condition precedent to the exercise of judicial power, an actual controversy between litigants must first exist. An actual case or controversy involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution, as distinguished from a hypothetical or abstract difference or dispute. There must be a contrariety of legal rights that can be interpreted and enforced on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence. (Emphases supplied)
	GR No. 180098 2014-04-02	OFELIA FAUNI REYES v. INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. BRION, J.
The existence of an actual case or controversy is a condition precedent for the court's exercise of its power of adjudication. An actual case or controversy exists when there is a conflict of legal rights or an assertion of opposite legal claims between the parties that is susceptible or ripe for judicial resolution.[20] In negative terms, a justiciable controversy must neither be conjectural nor moot and academic. There must be a definite and concrete dispute touching on the legal relations of the parties who have adverse legal interests. The reason is that the issue ceases to be justiciable when a controversy becomes moot and academic; otherwise, the court would engage in rendering an advisory opinion on what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts. The disposition of the case would not have any practical use or value as there is no actual substantial relief to which the applicant would be entitled to and which would be negated by the dismissal or denial of the petition.[21]
	GR No. 172909 2014-03-05	SPS. SILVESTRE O. PLAZA AND ELENA Y. PLAZA v. GUILLERMO LUSTIVA BRION, J.
Likewise, upon the dismissal of the main case by the RTC on August 8, 2013, the question of issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction has become moot and academic. In Arevalo v. Planters Development Bank, [24] the Court ruled that a case becomes moot and academic when there is no more issue between the parties or object that can be served in deciding the merits of the case. Upon the dismissal of the main action, the question of the non-issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction automatically died with it. A writ of preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy; it is auxiliary, an adjunct of, and subject to the determination of the main action. It is deemed lifted upon the dismissal of the main case, any appeal therefrom notwithstanding.[25]
	GR No. 202651 2013-08-28	LUCENA B. RALLOS v. CITY OF CEBU REYES, J.
"Forum shopping is the act of litigants who repetitively avail themselves of multiple judicial remedies in different fora, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances; and raising substantially similar issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court; or for the purpose of increasing their chances of obtaining a favorable decision, if not in one court, then in another."[54]
	GR No. 166259 2012-11-12	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HONEYCOMB FARMS CORPORATION BRION, J.
Forum shopping is the act of litigants who repetitively avail themselves of multiple judicial remedies in different fora, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances; and raising substantially similar issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court; or for the purpose of increasing their chances of obtaining a favorable decision, if not in one court, then in another. The rationale against forum-shopping is that a party should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in two different courts, for to do so would constitute abuse of court processes which tends to degrade the administration of justice, wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial procedure, and adds to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts.[42]