This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-01-19 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| We emphasized in Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Court of Appeals,[23] that non-working days (Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) are excluded from the counting of the period only when the last day of the period falls on such days. Rule 22 does not provide for any other circumstance in which non-working days would affect the counting of a prescribed period. | |||||
|
2008-03-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| This Court takes note of the fact that in several cases[45] the Court denied the application for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction that would enjoin an extrajudicial foreclosure of a mortgage, and declared that foreclosure is proper when the debtors are in default of the payment of their obligation. Where the parties stipulated in their credit agreements, mortgage contracts and promissory notes that the mortgagee is authorized to foreclose the mortgaged properties in case of default by the mortgagors, the mortgagee has a clear right to foreclosure in case of default, making the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction improper. However, the doctrine in these cases is not applicable to the case at bar where the identity of the creditor-mortgagor is highly disputable. | |||||
|
2007-02-14 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| An injunctive writ issues only upon showing that: a) the applicant possesses a clear and unmistakable right; b) there is a material and substantial invasion of such right; and c) there is urgent and permanent necessity for an injunctive writ to prevent serious damage.[19] | |||||