This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2015-12-09 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Although the RTC undoubtedly had jurisdiction to hear and decide the principal action for specific performance as well as to act on the motions submitted to it in the course of the proceedings, the distinction between jurisdiction over the case and jurisdiction to issue an interlocutory order as an ancillary remedy incident to the principal action should be discerned. We have frequently declared that a court may have jurisdiction over the principal action but may nevertheless act irregularly or in excess of its jurisdiction in the course of its proceedings by the granting of an auxiliary remedy.[38] In Leung Ben v. O'Brien,[39] for instance, this Court has thus clarified: It may be observed in this connection that the word "jurisdiction" as used in attachment cases, has reference not only to the authority of the court to entertain the principal action but also to its authority to issue the attachment, as dependent upon the existence of the statutory ground. (6 C. J., 89.) This distinction between jurisdiction to issue the attachment as an ancillary remedy incident to the principal litigation is of importance; as a court's jurisdiction over the main action may be complete, and yet it may lack authority to grant an attachment as ancillary to such action. This distinction between jurisdiction over the ancillary has been recognized by this court in connection with actions involving the appointment of a receiver. Thus in Rocha & Co. vs. Crossfield and Figueras (6 Phil. Rep., 355), a receiver had been appointed without legal justification. It was held that the order making the appointment was beyond the jurisdiction of the court; and though the court admittedly had jurisdiction of the main cause, the order was vacated by this court upon application a writ of certiorari. (See Blanco vs. Ambler, 3 Phil. Rep., 358, Blanco vs. Ambler and McMicking 3 Phil. Rep., 735, Yangco vs. Rohde, 1 Phil. Rep., 404.) | |||||