Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY v. JOSEPH JUDE CARANTES

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 208343 2016-02-03	SPS. CEFERINO C. LAUS v. OPTIMUM SECURITY SERVICES PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In this case, while the alleged real owners of the subject properties may be considered as real parties in interest for the reason that their supposed rights over these properties stand to be prejudiced, they are not indispensable parties to the instant suit. Despite its denomination as an action for "damages' in the complaint's caption,[53] the action, as may be gleaned from the pleading's allegations,[54] is really one for injunction as it ultimately seeks to permanently enjoin respondent and the other defendants, from restricting petitioners' access to the subject properties.[55] The crux of the main case, therefore, is whether or not respondent and said defendants were justified in preventing petitioners from conducting the relocation survey on the subject properties. Damages are also sought as ancillary relief for the acts complained of. These issues can be resolved independent of the participation of the alleged real owners of the subject properties. Hence, they are not indispensable parties, without whom no final determination can be had.
	GR No. 198426 2015-09-02	REPUBLIC v. PRINCIPALIA MANAGEMENT DEL CASTILLO, J.
Anent the failure of Principalia to observe the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies, suffice it to say that this principle admits of exceptions,[38] and notably, Principalia raised one of these exceptions, i.e., deprivation of due process, as an issue in its suit. And since this issue is a question of fact which the Court can only determine after the trial is had, the RTC was correct in not dismissing the case and in allowing the same to proceed to trial. Significantly, this likewise goes true with respect to the main relief for injunction. As the elements for its issuance, i.e., (1) there must be a right to be protected; and (2) the acts against which the injunction is to be directed are violative of said right,[39] are matters that must be proved during trial, the RTC merely acted in its judicial sphere when it proceeded to try the case.