Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
All

All

Ratings: (0)|Views: 110 |Likes:
Published by Sherylle Ong

More info:

Published by: Sherylle Ong on Jun 17, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/11/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 Arevalo p1
Lisam Enterprises, Inc. vs. Banco de Oro Unibank, Inc.,670 SCRA 310,April 23, 2012
p208)
 
Du vs. Jayoma,670 SCRA 333,April 23, 2012
p33
 
9)
Cosco Philippines Shipping, Inc. vs. Kemper Insurance Company,670 SCRA 343,April 23, 2012
p42
 April 18, 2012.G.R. No. 193415.
*
SPOUSES DAISY and SOCRATES M. AREVALO,petitioners,
vs.
PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK and THE REGISTEROF DEEDS OF PARAÑAQUE CITY, respondents.
Remedial Law; Provisional Remedies; Preliminary Injunction; A writ of  preliminary injunction is auxiliary to, an adjunct of, and subject to the outcome of the main case, thus, a writ of preliminary injunction is deemed lifted upon dismissalof the main case, any appeal therefrom notwithstanding.
 —A writ of preliminaryinjunction is a provisional remedy. It is auxiliary to, an adjunct of, and subject tothe outcome of the main case. Thus, a writ of preliminary injunction is deemedlifted upon dismissal of the main case, any appeal therefrom notwithstanding, asthis Court emphasized in
 Buyco v. Baraquia,
107 SCRA 187 (2009).
Constitutional Law; Judicial Power; As a condition precedent to the exercise of  judicial power, an actual controversy between litigants must first exist.
 —TheConstitution provides that judicial power “includes the duty of the courts of justiceto settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable andenforceable.” The exercise of judicial power requires an actual case calling for it.The courts have no authority to pass upon issues through advisory opinions, or toresolve hypothetical or feigned problems or friendly suits collusively arrangedbetween parties without real adverse interests. Furthermore, courts do not sit toadjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest, howeverintellectually challenging. As a condition precedent to the exercise of judicial power,an actual controversy between litigants must first exist. An actual case orcontroversy involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claimssusceptible of judicial resolution, as distinguished from a hypothetical or abstractdifference or dispute. There must be a contrariety of legal rights that can beinterpreted and enforced on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence.
 _______________ *SECOND DIVISION.
 
253
VOL. 670, APRIL 18,201253
 Arevalo vs. Planters Development Bank 
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Forum Shopping; Forum shopping is the act of litigants who repetitively avail themselves of multiple judicial remedies in different fora, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the sametransactions andthe same essential facts and circumstances; and raising substantially similar issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by someother court; or for the purpose of increasing their chances of obtaining a favorabledecision, if not in one court,then in another.
 —Forum shopping is the act of litigantswho repetitively avail themselves of multiple judicial remedies in different
 fora
,simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactionsand the same essential facts and circumstances; and raising substantially similarissues either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court; or forthe purpose of increasing their chances of obtaining a favorable decision, if not inone court, then in another. The rationale against forum-shopping is that a partyshould not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in two different courts, forto do so would constitute abuse of court processes which tends to degrade theadministration of justice, wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial procedure, and adds tothe congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts.
Same; Same; Same; Every litigant is required to notify the court of the filing or pendency of any other action or such other proceeding involving the same or similaraction or claim within five (5) days of learning of that fact.
 —Every litigant isrequired to notify the court of the filing or pendency of any other action or suchother proceeding involving the same or similar action or claim within five (5) days of learning of that fact. Petitioners claim that it was merely due to inadvertence thatthey failed to disclose the said filing within five (5) days, contrary to theirundertaking.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of theCourt ofAppeals.The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Socrates M. Arevalo
for petitioners.
 Alexander M. Paulino
for respondent.
253
VOL. 670, APRIL 18, 2012253
 Arevalo vs. Planters Development 
 
 Bank 
SERENO,
J.
:This is a Rule 45 Petition forReview, which seeks to reverse theDecision dated 24 March 2010
1
and Resolution dated 05 August 2010
2
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 110806. The CA affirmed thetrial court’s Decision not to grant petitioners’ application for a writ of preliminary injunction. As stated, this case involves the trial court’s refusal to issue a writ of preliminary injunction in favor of petitioner Spouses Daisy and SocratesM. Arevalo (Spouses Arevalo) based on their failure to comply with Section2 ofthe Procedure in Extrajudicial or Judicial Foreclosure of Real EstateMortgages (Procedure on Foreclosure)
3
issued by thisCourt. Thisprocedure required them to pay twelve percent (12%)
 per annum
intereston the amount of the principal obligation, as stated in the application forforeclosure sale, before an injunctive writ may issue against theextrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage.
4
We deny the instant Petition for the following reasons: (1) the Petitionis moot, because the trial court has already dismissed the Complaint dated07 April 2009 (the First Complaint),
5
upon which petitioners’ applicationfor the provi-
 _______________ 1
Rollo
, pp. 51-62.2
Rollo
, p. 64.3SC Administrative Matter No. 99-10-05-0 dated 20 February 2007. (Hereinafter, Procedure onForeclosure).4“No temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction against the extrajudicialforeclosure of real estate mortgage shall be issued on the allegation that the interest on the loan isunconscionable, unlessthe debtor pays the mortgagee at least twelve percent
 per annum
interest on theprincipal obligation as stated in the application for foreclosure sale, which shall be updated monthly whilethe case is pending.” (Sec. 2 of the Procedure on Foreclosure.)5The Complaint for Nullification of Interests, Penalties and Other Charges, Specific Performancewith Prayer for Preliminary Injunction, TRO and Damages dated 07 April 2009, docketed as Civil
255
VOL. 670, APRIL 18, 2012255
 Arevalo vs. Planters Development  Bank 
sional remedy of preliminary injunction was based; and (2) petitioners areguilty of forum-shopping.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->