Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. RAMON S. CAGUIOA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 182758 2011-05-30	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF SEVERINO LISTANA CARPIO, J.
As correctly ruled by the lower courts, the P5,644,773.02 bond shall answer for the damages Listana may sustain if the courts finally uphold the P10,956,963.25 just compensation set by the DARAB. In Republic v. Caguioa,[16] the Court held that, "The purpose of the injunction bond is to protect the defendant against loss or damage by reason of the injunction in case the court finally decides that the plaintiff was not entitled to it, and the bond is usually conditioned accordingly."[17]
	GR No. 166134 2010-06-29	ANGELES CITY v. ANGELES CITY ELECTRIC CORPORATION DEL CASTILLO, J.
A principle deeply embedded in our jurisprudence is that taxes being the lifeblood of the government should be collected promptly,[26] without unnecessary hindrance[27] or delay.[28] In line with this principle, the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 (NIRC) expressly provides that no court shall have the authority to grant an injunction to restrain the collection of any national internal revenue tax, fee or charge imposed by the code.[29] An exception to this rule obtains only when in the opinion of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) the collection thereof may jeopardize the interest of the government and/or the taxpayer.[30]
	GR No. 184778 2009-10-02	BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS MONETARY BOARD v. NINA G. ANTONIO-VALENZUELA VELASCO JR., J.
Courts are hereby reminded to take greater care in issuing injunctive relief to litigants, that it would not violate any law. The grant of a preliminary injunction in a case rests on the sound discretion of the court with the caveat that it should be made with great caution.[17] Thus, the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction must have basis in and be in accordance with law. All told, while the grant or denial of an injunction generally rests on the sound discretion of the lower court, this Court may and should intervene in a clear case of abuse.[18]
	AM No. RTJ-07-2063 2009-06-26	REPUBLIC v. JUDGE RAMON S. CAGUIOA PER CURIAM
In moving for the dismissal of the administrative complaints, respondent judge argues that the acts complained of are judicial in nature; and that the cases involve the same issues raised by the complainants before this Court[7] and the Court of Appeals.[8] He also cites the ruling of this Court in G.R. No. 168584, where we held that respondent judge therein erred in issuing the injunction order, but that the evidence of his alleged partiality was insufficient to prohibit him from proceeding with the case.
	AM No. RTJ-07-2063 2009-06-26	REPUBLIC v. JUDGE RAMON S. CAGUIOA PER CURIAM
In moving for the dismissal of the administrative complaints, respondent judge argues that the acts complained of are judicial in nature; and that the cases involve the same issues raised by the complainants before this Court[7] and the Court of Appeals.[8] He also cites the ruling of this Court in G.R. No. 168584, where we held that respondent judge therein erred in issuing the injunction order, but that the evidence of his alleged partiality was insufficient to prohibit him from proceeding with the case.
	AM No. RTJ-07-2063 2009-06-26	REPUBLIC v. JUDGE RAMON S. CAGUIOA PER CURIAM
In A.M. No. RTJ-07-2063, respondent judge issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, enjoining the collection of taxes. Taxes are the lifeblood of the government, and it is of public interest that the collection of which should not be restrained.[9] Further, the applicants for the Writ showed no clear and unmistakable right that was material and substantial as would warrant the issuance of the Writ. Neither were the applicants able to demonstrate the urgency and necessity of the Writ. The burden that the applicants' businesses would sustain because of the imposition of the sin tax on their tobacco and alcohol products cannot possibly be greater than the heavy government revenue losses that would result from the non-collection of taxes. In addition, the improper issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction was aggravated by the inadequate injunctive bond. As Justice Dicdican pointed out, respondent judge approved the one million-peso bond for the 13 original petitioners and 5 intervenors. The purpose of an injunctive bond is to protect the opposing party (the government, in the instant case) against loss or damage by reason of the injunction in case the court finally decides that the applicants (importers/traders inside the Subic Bay Freeport Zone) are not entitled to it.[10]
	GR No. 160113 2008-04-30	CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. TA FA INDUSTRIES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The oft-repeated rule, as stated in Republic of the Philippines v. Caguioa,[11] is that:For a writ of preliminary injunction to issue, the plaintiff must be able to establish that (1) there is a clear and unmistakable right to be protected, (2) the invasion of the right sought to be protected is material and substantial, and (3) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.