Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CITY OF NAGA v. ELVI JOHN S. ASUNCION

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 183367 2012-03-14	SECOND DIVISION AUSTRALIAN PROFESSIONAL REALTY v. MUNICIPALITY OF PADRE GARCIA BATANGAS PROVINCE SERENO, J.
Under Section 1 (c) of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, no appeal may be taken from an interlocutory order. An interlocutory order is one that does not dispose of the case completely but leaves something to be decided upon.[8] An order granting or denying an application for preliminary injunction is interlocutory in nature and, hence, not appealable.[9] Instead, the proper remedy is to file a Petition for Certiorari and/or Prohibition under Rule 65.[10]
	GR No. 152272 2012-03-05	JUANA COMPLEX I HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION v. FIL-ESTATE LAND MENDOZA, J.
A writ of preliminary injunction is available to prevent a threatened or continuous irremediable injury to parties before their claims can be thoroughly studied and adjudicated.[25] The requisites for its issuance are: (1) the existence of a clear and unmistakable right that must be protected; and (2) an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.[26] For the writ to issue, the right sought to be protected must be a present right, a legal right which must be shown to be clear and positive.[27] This means that the persons applying for the writ must show that they have an ostensible right to the final relief prayed for in their complaint.[28]
	GR No. 167715 2010-11-17	PHIL PHARMAWEALTH v. PFIZER PERALTA, J.
It is settled by this Court in several cases that the filing by a party of two apparently different actions but with the same objective constitutes forum shopping.[28] The Court discussed this species of forum shopping as follows: Very simply stated, the original complaint in the court a quo which gave rise to the instant petition was filed by the buyer (herein private respondent and his predecessors-in-interest) against the seller (herein petitioners) to enforce the alleged perfected sale of real estate. On the other hand, the complaint in the Second Case seeks to declare such purported sale involving the same real property "as unenforceable as against the Bank," which is the petitioner herein. In other words, in the Second Case, the majority stockholders, in representation of the Bank, are seeking to accomplish what the Bank itself failed to do in the original case in the trial court. In brief, the objective or the relief being sought, though worded differently, is the same, namely, to enable the petitioner Bank to escape from the obligation to sell the property to respondent.[29]
	GR No. 166134 2010-06-29	ANGELES CITY v. ANGELES CITY ELECTRIC CORPORATION DEL CASTILLO, J.
As a rule, the issuance of a preliminary injunction rests entirely within the discretion of the court taking cognizance of the case and will not be interfered with, except where there is grave abuse of discretion committed by the court.[36] For grave abuse of discretion to prosper as a ground for certiorari, it must be demonstrated that the lower court or tribunal has exercised its power in an arbitrary and despotic manner, by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be patent and gross as would amount to an evasion or to a unilateral refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law.[37] In other words, mere abuse of discretion is not enough.[38]
	GR Nos. 189431 & 191120 2010-04-07	MAYOR QUINTIN B. SALUDAGA v. COMELEC VILLARAMA, JR., J.
When the COMELEC, Second Division issued the September 4, 2009 Order, the appeal of respondent's election protest was still pending resolution by the COMELEC en banc. Clearly, the September 4, 2009 Order of the COMELEC, Second Division granting execution pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration is in the nature of an interlocutory order - one which does not dispose of the case completely but leaves something to be decided upon.[28] Therefore, in accordance with the Comelec Rules of Procedure, any motion to reconsider such interlocutory order of the division shall be resolved by the division which issued it. Otherwise stated, the Extremely Urgent Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner to question the September 4, 2009 Order issued by the COMELEC, Second Division had to be resolved also by the Second Division, not by the COMELEC en banc.
	GR No. 171386 2009-07-17	GLORIA R. MOTOS v. REAL BANK QUISUMBING, J.
An interlocutory order is one which does not dispose of the case completely but leaves something to be decided upon.[32] Under Section 1(c),[33] Rule 41 of the Rules, no appeal may be taken from an interlocutory order. Hence, the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in ordering the RTC to give due course to petitioners' appeal.