This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-08-12 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Preliminary injunction is merely a provisional remedy that is adjunct to the main case, and is subject to the latter's outcome. It is not a cause of action itself.[22] It is provisional because it constitutes a temporary measure availed of during the pendency of the action; and it is ancillary because it is a mere incident in and is dependent upon the result of the main action.[23] Following the dismissal of the petition for certiorari, there is no more legal basis to issue the writ of injunction sought. As an auxiliary remedy, the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction cannot be issued independently of the principal action.[24] | |||||
|
2014-06-25 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| To reiterate, despite the immediately executory nature of the judgment of the RTC in ejectment cases, which judgment is not stayed by an appeal taken therefrom, the Court of Appeals may issue a writ of preliminary injunction that will restrain or enjoin the execution of the RTC's judgment. In the exercise of such authority, the Court of Appeals should constantly be aware that 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.[57] | |||||
|
2013-08-07 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Accordingly, there is no conflict which would call for the application of the doctrine that a special law should prevail over a general law. It must be emphasized that R.A .No. 7653 is a later law and under said act, the power of the MB over banks, including rural banks, was increased and expanded. The Court, in several cases, upheld the power of the MB to take over banks without need for prior hearing. It is not necessary inasmuch as the law entrusts to the MB the appreciation and determination of whether any or all of the statutory grounds for the closure and receivership of the erring bank are present. The MB, under R.A. No. 7653, has been invested with more power of closure and placement of a bank under receivership for insolvency or illiquidity, or because the bank's continuance in business would probably result in the loss to depositors or creditors. In the case of Bangko Sentral Ng Pilipinas Monetary Board v. Hon. Antonio-Valenzuela,[36] the Court reiterated the doctrine of "close now, hear later," stating that it was justified as a measure for the protection of the public interest. Thus:The "close now, hear later" doctrine has already been justified as a measure for the protection of the public interest. Swift action is called for on the part of the BSP when it finds that a bank is in dire straits. Unless adequate and determined efforts are taken by the government against distressed and mismanaged banks, public faith in the banking system is certain to deteriorate to the prejudice of the national economy itself, not to mention the losses suffered by the bank depositors, creditors, and stockholders, who all deserve the protection of the government.[37] [Emphasis supplied] | |||||
|
2013-08-07 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The doctrine is founded on practical and legal considerations to obviate unwarranted dissipation of the bank's assets and as a valid exercise of police power to protect the depositors, creditors, stockholders, and the general public.[40] Swift, adequate and determined actions must be taken against financially distressed and mismanaged banks by government agencies lest the public faith in the banking system deteriorate to the prejudice of the national economy. | |||||