Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ALDERITO Z. YUJUICO v. CEZAR T. QUIAMBAO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 179047 2015-03-11	SECURITIES v. SUBIC BAY GOLF LEONEN, J.
The relationship test requires that the dispute be between a corporation/partnership/association and the public; a corporation/partnership/association and the state regarding the entity's franchise, permit, or license to operate; a corporation/partnership/association and its stockholders, partners, members, or officers; and among stockholders, partners, or associates of the entity.[70]
	GR No. 194024 2012-04-25	PHILIP L. GO v. DISTINCTION PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT MENDOZA, J.
An intra-corporate controversy is one which "pertains to any of the following relationships: (1) between the corporation, partnership or association and the public; (2) between the corporation, partnership or association and the State in so far as its franchise, permit or license to operate is concerned; (3) between the corporation, partnership or association and its stockholders, partners, members or officers; and (4) among the stockholders, partners or associates themselves."[40]
	AM No. 2008-20-SC 2010-03-15	RE: COMPLAINT OF MRS. CORAZON S. SALVADOR AND SPS. NOEL AND AMELIA SERAFICO PER CURIAM
Subsequently, to bolster her defense of not interfering with Court processes relative to some cases, Amelia submitted copies of the September 6, 2006 Resolution[29] in G.R. No. 158805 and the January 29, 2007 Decision[30] in G.R. No. 168639.
	GR No. 179892-93 2009-01-30	ATTY. VICTORIANO V. OROCIO v. EDMUND P. ANGULUAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a party or a court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts.[34] A writ of preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy, an adjunct to a main suit, as well as a preservative remedy issued to preserve the status quo of the things subject of the action or the relations between the parties during the pendency of the suit.[35] For a writ of preliminary injunction to issue, the applicant is tasked to establish and convincingly show the following: (1) a right in esse or a clear and unmistakable right to be protected; (2) a violation of that right; and (3) there is an urgent and permanent act and urgent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.[36]
	GR No. 153690 2008-08-26	DAVID LU v. PATERNO LU YM NACHURA, J.
It has been consistently held that there is no power, the exercise of which is more delicate, which requires greater caution, deliberation and sound discretion, or more dangerous in a doubtful case than the issuance of an injunction. It is the strong arm of equity that should never be extended unless to cases of great injury, where courts of law cannot afford an adequate or commensurate remedy in damages. Every court should remember that an injunction is a limitation upon the freedom of action of the defendant and should not be granted lightly or precipitately. It should be granted only when the court is fully satisfied that the law permits it and the emergency demands it.[78]
	GR No. 164299 2008-02-12	MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. POWERGEN CORONA, J.
It must be borne in mind that an injunction is a preservative remedy for the protection of one's substantive right or interest,[21] issued to preserve the status quo of the things subject of the action or the relations between the parties during the pendency of the suit.[22] The application for the injunctive writ is not a cause of action in itself but only a provisional remedy, a mere adjunct to the main suit.[23]