This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2003-02-27 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Complainants also challenge the sale on execution of the shares of stock purportedly co-owned by complainant Go and defendant Alberto T. Looyuko. They assert that the judgment against Go was not yet final and executory in view of the filing of a petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition assailing the dismissal of their appeal. In support of their claim, they cite the principle of "judicial courtesy" as explained in Eternal Gardens Memorial Corp. v. Court of Appeals,[1] and Joy Mart Consolidated Corp. v. Court of Appeals.[2] | |||||
|
2003-02-27 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the precept of "judicial courtesy" should not be applied indiscriminately and haphazardly if we are to maintain the relevance of Sec. 7, Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which states that "the petition shall not interrupt the course of the principal case unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction has been issued against the public respondent from further proceeding in the case." So construed, in Eternal Gardens Memorial Corp. v. Court of Appeals,[6] the rule of "judicial courtesy" would apply only if there is a strong probability that the issues before the higher court would be rendered moot and moribund as a result of the continuation of the proceedings in the lower court. Unfortunately for complainants, this circumstance is not present in the decision of respondent Judge to issue on 19 April 2000 a second writ of execution. | |||||