Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOSE T. BARBIETO v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 209271 2015-12-08	ISAAA v. GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES) VILLARAMA, JR., J.
An action is considered 'moot' when it no longer presents a justiciable controversy because the issues involved have become academic or dead, or when the matter in dispute has already been resolved and hence, one is not entitled to judicial intervention unless the issue is likely to be raised again between the parties.[46] Time and again, courts have refrained from even expressing an opinion in a case where the issues have become moot and academic, there being no more justiciable controversy to speak of, so that a determination thereof would be of no practical use or value.[47]
	GR No. 159370 2012-10-03	PALM TREE ESTATES v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In Barbieto v. Court of Appeals,[53] the Court stated the general principles in issuing a writ of preliminary injunction: A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action prior to judgment of final order, requiring a party, court, agency, or person to refrain from a particular act or acts. It is a preservative remedy to ensure the protection of a party's substantive rights or interests pending the final judgment in the principal action. A plea for an injunctive writ lies upon the existence of a claimed emergency or extraordinary situation which should be avoided for otherwise, the outcome of a litigation would be useless as far as the party applying for the writ is concerned.
	GR No. 198554 2012-07-30	MAJOR GENERAL CARLOS F. GARCIA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PERALTA, J.
[50] Barbieto v. CA, G.R. No. 184645, October 30, 2009, 604 SCRA 825, 840-841, citing Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, Senate Committee on Trade and Commerce, and Senate Committee on National Defense and Security, G.R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008, 549 SCRA 77, 131.
	GR No. 183367 2012-03-14	SECOND DIVISION AUSTRALIAN PROFESSIONAL REALTY v. MUNICIPALITY OF PADRE GARCIA BATANGAS PROVINCE SERENO, J.
The grant or denial of a writ of preliminary injunction in a pending case rests on the sound discretion of the court taking cognizance of the case, since the assessment and evaluation of evidence towards that end involves findings of fact left to the said court for its conclusive determination.[16] Hence, the exercise of judicial discretion by a court in injunctive matters must not be interfered with, except when there is grave abuse of discretion.[17]
	GR No. 172553 2011-12-14	OFFICE OF DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON v. JESUS D. FRANCISCO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Barbieto v. Court of Appeals[26] reiterates that "[t]ime and again, courts have refrained from even expressing an opinion in a case where the issues have become moot and academic, there being no more justiciable controversy to speak of, so that a determination thereof would be of no practical use or value."