This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2010-11-17 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Similarly, in Tomawis v. Tabao-Cudang,[45] the Court held that the decision of the Regional Trial Court did not become final and executory where, from the records, the respondent had not received a copy of the resolution denying her motion for reconsideration.[46] The Court also noted that there was no sufficient proof that the respondent actually received a copy of the said Order or that she indeed received a first notice. Thus, the Court concluded that there could be no valid basis for the issuance of the writ of execution as the decision never attained finality. | |||||
|
2010-03-09 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| One of the requisites for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is that the applicant must have a right in esse.[22] A right in esse is a clear and unmistakable right to be protected,[23] one clearly founded on or granted by law or is enforceable as a matter of law.[24] The existence of a right to be protected, and the acts against which the writ is to be directed are violative of said right must be established.[25] | |||||
|
2009-12-21 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| On the postulate then that first, the finality of the November 18, 2008 Decision has yet to set in, the issuance of the precipitate[16] entry of judgment notwithstanding, and second, the deadlocked vote on the second motion for reconsideration did not definitely settle the constitutionality of the cityhood laws, the Court is inclined to take another hard look at the underlying decision. Without belaboring in their smallest details the arguments for and against the procedural dimension of this disposition, it bears to stress that the Court has the power to suspend its own rules when the ends of justice would be served thereby.[17] In the performance of their duties, courts should not be shackled by stringent rules which would result in manifest injustice. Rules of procedure are only tools crafted to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application must be eschewed, if they result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice. Substantial rights must not be prejudiced by a rigid and technical application of the rules in the altar of expediency. When a case is impressed with public interest, a relaxation of the application of the rules is in order.[18] Time and again, this Court has suspended its own rules or excepted a particular case from their operation whenever the higher interests of justice so require.[19] | |||||
|
2009-01-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| A clear legal right means one clearly founded on or granted by law or is enforceable as a matter of law.[37] The existence of a right violated is a prerequisite to the granting of a writ of preliminary injunction.[38] A writ of preliminary injunction will not issue to protect a right not in esse and which may never arise.[39] It may be issued only if the applicant has clearly shown an actual existing right that should be protected during the pendency of the principal action.[40] In the absence of a clear legal right, or when the applicant's right or title is doubtful or disputed, preliminary injunction is not proper.[41] | |||||
|
2008-11-18 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| However, courts may take exceptions. In the performance of their duties, courts should not be shackled by stringent rules which would result in manifest injustice. Rules of procedure are only tools crafted to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, if they result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must be eschewed. Substantial rights must not be prejudiced by a rigid and technical application of the rules in the altar of expediency. When a case is impressed with public interest, a relaxation of the application of the rules is in order.[85] Time and again, this Court has suspended its own rules and excepted a particular case from their operation whenever the higher interests of justice so require.[86] | |||||