This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-04-22 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| It is a well-established rule that consummated acts can no longer be restrained by injunction.[14] When the acts sought to be prevented by injunction or prohibition have already been performed or completed prior to the filing of the injunction suit, nothing more can be enjoined or restrained;[15] a writ of injunction then becomes moot and academic,[16] and the court, by mere issuance of the writ, can no longer stop or undo the act. To do so would violate the sole purpose of a prohibitive injunction, that is, to preserve the status quo. | |||||
|
2010-07-09 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The settled rule is that the filing of an amended pleading does not retroact to the date of the filing of the original; hence, the statute of limitation runs until the submission of the amendment.[22] It is true that, as an exception, this Court has held that an amendment which merely supplements and amplifies facts originally alleged in the complaint relates back to the date of the commencement of the action and is not barred by the statute of limitations which expired after the service of the original complaint.[23] The exception, however, would not apply to the party impleaded for the first time in the amended complaint.[24] | |||||
|
2007-10-26 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| Clearly, petitioner did not yet know of the pendency of the petition for certiorari before the CA when the inventory of the assets in Noah's Ark Sugar Refinery was completed on January 5, 2001. Thus, the appellate court committed reversible error when it held that petitioner proceeded at his own peril the conduct of the inventory in view of the pendency of the certiorari case in which the appellate court enjoined the trial court from proceeding with its January 8, 2001 Resolution. Verily, even before the CA granted the TRO and issued its January 8, 2001 Resolution, the proceeding to be enjoined, that is, the conduct of the inventory, had already been done. Thus, we agree with petitioner that Verzosa v. Court of Appeals[61] relied upon by the appellate court is not applicable. | |||||