This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2006-05-19 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Notably in the case of Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals[14], while this Court held that respondents were liable for the stipulated interest rate of 18% per annum, we equitably reduced the same to 10% per annum after finding that the interests and penalty charges alone exceeded the amount of the principal debt. As such, the interests were found to be excessive. We further held that the additional penalty charge of 8% per annum would sufficiently cover whatever else damages petitioner may have incurred such as attorney's fees and litigation expenses. | |||||
|
2001-10-26 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In order that injunction may issue, two requisites must concur: 1) the existence of a right to be protected; and 2) the facts against which the injunction is to be directed are violative of said right.[14] Having established the right of respondents over Lot No. 6124, as well as petitioner's act of interfering with such possessory right, we find that the Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the decision of the trial court granting the injunction prayed for. | |||||
|
2000-11-20 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| "Two requisites are necessary if a preliminary injunction is to issue, namely: (1) the existence of a right to be protected and (2) the facts against which the injunction is to be directed are violative of said rights."[19] None of the above requisites exists in the case at bar. | |||||