This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2007-03-20 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| "Technically, status quo is "defined as the last actual, peaceful and uncontested status that precedes the actual controversy, that which is existing at the time of the filing of the case"[18] However, the Supreme Court has ruled that a status quo ante order has "the nature of a temporary restraining order"[19]. Thus, the decretal portion of the resolution of July 24, 2001, specifically ordered that the public respondent is 'temporarily enjoined' from implementing the assailed writ of execution. Respondent justice must be playing with words. When a judge or justice uses technical or legal terms with a well-defined meaning, such as a temporary restraining order or a status quo order, he must have intended those meaning; he cannot impute a "directory" meaning to confuse the parties. x x x On the other hand, he ought to know that a temporary restraining order cannot exist indefinitely; it has a lifetime of a non-extendible period of sixty days and automatically expired on the sixtieth day[20]. No judicial declaration that it has expired is necessary[21], and, the lower courts, including the Court of Appeals, have no discretion to extend the same[22]. A second TRO by the Court of Appeals after the expiration of the sixty day period is a patent nullity.[23] | |||||