Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MABAYO FARMS v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 157163 2014-06-25	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. JUDGE AGAPITO L. ANOSAS BERSAMIN, J.
It is also basic that the power to issue a writ of injunction is to be exercised only where the reason and necessity therefor are clearly established, and only in cases reasonably free from doubt.[35] For, truly, a preliminary injunction should not determine the merits of a case,[36] or decide controverted facts.[37] As a preventive remedy, injunction only seeks to prevent threatened wrong,[38] further injury,[39] and irreparable harm[40] or injustice[41] until the rights of the parties can be settled. As an ancillary and preventive remedy, it may be resorted to by a party to protect or preserve his rights during the pendency of the principal action, and for no other purpose.[42] Such relief will accordingly protect the ability of the court to render a meaningful decision;[43] it will further serve to guard against a change of circumstances that will hamper or prevent the granting of proper relief after a trial on the merits.[44] Verily, its essential function is to preserve the status quo between the parties until the merits of the case can be heard.[45]
	AM OCA IPI No. 12-201-CA-J 2013-02-19	ETHELWOLDO E. FERNANDEZ v. CA ASSOCIATE JUSTICES RAMON M. BATO REYES, J.
The complainants need to realize that a preliminary injunction is not a ponencia but an order granted at any stage of an action prior to final judgment, requiring a person to refrain from a particular act. It is settled that as an ancillary or preventive remedy, a writ of preliminary injunction may be resorted to by a party to protect or preserve his rights and for no other purpose during the pendency of the principal action. Its object is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case are passed upon. It is not a cause of action in itself but merely a provisional remedy, an adjunct to a main suit.[24] On the other hand, ponencia refers to the rendition of a decision in a case on the merits, which disposes of the main controversy. In this case, the main issue in the four CA petitions is the validity of the RTC's Order dated December 21, 2011 declaring as void and of no effect NADECOR's stockholders' meeting on August 15, 2011. Contrary to the complainants' insistence, the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the 14th Division in CA-G.R. SP No. 122784 did not settle the controversy therein, but is a mere interlocutory order to restore the status quo ante, that is, the state of things prior to the RTC's Order of December 21, 2011.
	GR No. 152375 2011-12-13	REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION) BRION, J.
In conjunction with the order of consolidation, the petitioner's reliance on the prior notice on the respondents, as adequate opportunity for cross-examination, cannot override the non-party status of the respondents in Civil Case No. 0130 the effect of consolidation being merely for trial. As non-parties, they cannot be bound by proceedings in that case. Specifically, they cannot be bound by the taking of the Bane deposition without the consequent impairment of their right of cross-examination.[148] Opportunity for cross-examination, too, even assuming its presence, cannot be singled out as basis for the admissibility of a former testimony or deposition since such admissibility is also anchored on the requisite identity of parties. To reiterate, although the Sandiganbayan considered the Bane deposition in resolving Civil Case No. 0130, its action was premised on Africa's status as a party in that case where the Bane deposition was taken.
	GR Nos. 182136-37 2008-08-29	BON-MAR REALTY YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
To warrant intervention, two requisites must concur: (a) the movant has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, and (b) intervention must not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the parties nor should the claim of the intervenor be capable of being properly decided in a separate proceeding.[31] The interest, which entitles a person to intervene in a suit, must involve the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment.[32]
	GR NO. 160727 2007-06-26	UNION BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. DANILO L. CONCEPCION GARCIA, J.
Intervention is a procedure by which a third person, not originally party to the suit, but claiming an interest in the subject matter, comes into the case, in order to protect his right or interpose his claim.[35] Its main purpose is to settle in one action and by a single judgment all conflicting claims of or the whole controversy among the persons involved.[36] To warrant intervention under Rule 19, Section 1 of the Rules of Court,[37] two requisites must concur: (a) the movant has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, and (b) intervention must not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the parties, nor should the claim of the intervenor be capable of being properly decided in a separate proceeding. The interest, which entitles one to intervene, must involve the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate character[38] that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment.[39]