This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
G.R. Nos. 99289-90 January 13, 1992
Facts: Santiago had been charged with violations of EO 324 for having approved the legalization of aliens who arrived in the Phil and libel, among others, as filed by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (as authorized by the Ombudsman) in the RTC. Santiago then sought to enjoin the RTC and the Sandiganbayan from proceeding with the criminal cases against thru certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction directly in the SC. Issue: Whether the recourse of Santiago is proper. Held: No. The allegations of Santiago in its petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction are matters which can be ventilated and substantiated in the proceedings before and/or during the trial of these cases in the lower courts which would be the proper stages and for the adjudication thereof.
and even then. No. Thus Enrile. 1990 . Enrile vs. without bail on the strength of a warrant issued by an RTC. The criminal case before the respondent Judge was the normal venue for invoking the petitioner's right to have provisional liberty pending trial and judgment. Issue: WON the filing of the petition for the writ of habeas corpus is the proper recourse of Enrile. Salazar Facts: Enrile was arrested by the NBI for the crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder.In the matter of petition for habeas corpus.R. G. thru counsel filed a petition for habeas corpus in the SC. The original jurisdiction to grant or deny bail rested with said respondent. The correct course was for petitioner to invoke that jurisdiction by filing a petition to be admitted to bail. claiming a right to bail per se by reason of the weakness of the evidence against him. 92163 June 5. not without first applying to the Court of Appeals if appropriate relief was also available there. Only after that remedy was denied by the trial court should the review jurisdiction of this Court have been invoked. Held: No.
Cuaresma Facts: G. and should also serve as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs. clearly and specifically set out in the petition. and those against the latter. Hence. . Fiscal. L-67787 April 18. That hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals. A becoming regard for that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level ("inferior") courts should be filed with the Regional Trial Court.People vs. The application for the writ of certiorari sought against a City Court was brought directly to this Court although there is no discernible special and important reason for not presenting it to the Regional Trial Court. Issue: Whether the filing of the application for a writ of certiorari directly to the SC is proper. the People filed an application directly to the SC for a writ of certiorari against the City Court. This is established policy A direct invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor. She moved to quash the same but was denied and such order of denial required the Fiscal to file a verified complaint by the private offended party.R. There is a hierarchy of courts. Held: No. This was complied with. 1989 Cuaresma was charged with oral defamation in a city court by virtue of an information filed by an Asst. Cuaresma then moved for quashal alleging that the action against her had already prescribed. This was granted. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor. with the Court of Appeals. No. clearly and specifically set out in the petition.
It is shared by this Court with Regional Trial Courts (formerly Courts of First Instance). 1981.Malano vs. 106692 September 1. Later on. unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which application therefor will be directed. The court's original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari (as well as prohibition. but he accepted this. No. he claimed from DOST the payment of back salaries and the payment of salary comparable with his previous position. enforceable in any part of their respective regions. to be taken as according to parties seeking any of the writs an absolute.mandamus. the latter's competence to issue the extraordinary writs was restricted by those "in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. He was placed in a position lower than his previous. Thus." This concurrence of jurisdiction is not. 1994 Malano¶s position under the DOST was aboliched due to the reorganization in such office. he filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus in the SC. invoking in his favour the decision on a later jurisprudence. Mandamus is not available for him. Upon denial. he sent to CSC a letter to order his employer to pay what he demands. although prior to the effectivity of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 on August 14. however. quo warranto. It is also shared by this court. Issue: WON the recourse of Malano is proper. habeas corpus and injunction) is not exclusive. with the Court of Appeals. Gloria Facts: G. Held: No. And even assuming that such is available. which was also denied. There is after all a hierarchy of courts. which may issue the writ. . the court finds no special or cogent reason to justify acceptance of this petition as an exception to this Court's policy concerning the hierarchy of courts in relation to cases where it has concurrent jurisdiction with the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals. He made an appeal with the DOST/RAB to place her to any comparable position. and by the Regional Trial Court.R.
Held: YES The writs of attachment may properly issue ex parte provided that the Court is satisfied that the relevant requisites therefor have been fulfilled by the applicant. the order of attachment. if any). Issue: WON a writ of preliminary attachment may issue ex parte against a defendant before acquisition of jurisdiction of the latter's person by service of summons or his voluntary submission to the Court's authority. the application for attachment (if not incorporated in but submitted separately from the complaint). Davao Light submitted the attachment bond. 1991 Facts: Davao Light filed a verified complaint for recovery of a sum of money against Queensland Hotel with an ex parte application for a writ of prelim attachment. The next day. CA G. copy of the complaint. the court had not yet acquired jurisdiction over them. the sheriff then seized properties belonging to the defendant. or contemporaneously accompanied.R. vs. No. . the writ of attachment and a copy of the attachment bond were served upon defendant. a copy of the complaint (and of the appointment of guardian ad litem. in its discretion. The ex parte application was granted.Davao Light & Power Co. yhus the writ of prelim attachment issued. and the plaintiff's attachment bond. 93262 December 29. by service on the defendant of summons. require prior hearing on the application with notice to the defendant. although it may. Pursuant to the writ. Defendant filed a motion to discharge the writ alleging that during the time that the attachment was issued. the summons. but that levy on property pursuant to the writ thus issued may not be validly effected unless preceded.
Montenegro moved for the restitution of her premises. In forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases under Rule 72. 1944 Mrs. The court has no discretion to give or not to give this effect to such failure of payment. Mrs. . Held: Yes. the judgment of the municipal court is immediately executory unless the conditions precedent for the stay of execution specified in section 8 of said Rule are complied with.R. ********************** Since in the instant case there is a contract between the parties for the payment of the rent of P55 in advance within the first ten days of each month.Peck vs. the writ of execution was mandatory. Montenegro. The CFI granted this. and upon failure of the defendant to comply with any of said conditions. it is mandatory upon the court to issue the writ of execution. Hon Concepcion Facts: G. Peck failed to pay such rental within the first 10 days. Montenegro moved for the immediate execution of the judgment of the municipal court for restitution. No. the respondent judge had no alternative but to grant the petition for execution prayed for by his correspondent Mrs. During the pendency of the appeal to the CFI. L-49140 June 26. Issue: WON the CFI was correct in granting the writ of execution. and thus. and since the petitioner as defendant below failed to pay or deposit the rent for the month of January 1944 on or before the 10th day of said month. The municipal court granted this and ordered Peck to pay a monthly rental of 55 Pesos within the first 10 days of every month while the case for restitution is pending. Peck moved for reconsideration but was refused since according to the CFI.
Hence. However. were under custodia legis and therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of another co-equal court where a third party claimant claimed ownership of the same properties. 1990 A writ of preliminary attachment was implemented by sheriff Cabang for the satisfaction of the debt of Sy Yuk Tat from Uy. Since according to the CFI it would take a while before such writ of prelim injunction can be issued. . However.Uy vs. 83897 November 9. No. the rule does not apply and interference with his custody is not interference with another court's order of attachment. this rule is confined to cases where the property belongs to the defendant or one in which the defendant has proprietary interests. But when the Sheriff. Issue: WON properties levied and seized by virtue of a writ of attachment and later by a writ of execution. Held: Yes. CA Facts: G. Thus. the judge ordered the parties to maintain the status quo of the subject properties. third party claimants filed a motion for prelim attachment which was granted. these third party claimants filed a writ of preliminary injunction in a different CFI branch against Uy and Sheriff Cabang alleging that the properties attached by the sheriff belong to them. Subsequently. Uy and Cabang filed a motion to dissolve the status quo order on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to interfere with properties under custodio legis on orders of a court of co-equal jurisdiction. there were third party claimants over the property attached. properties levied and seized by virtue of a writ of attachment and later by a writ of execution were under custodia legis and therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of another co-equal court where a third party claimant claimed ownership of the same properties.R. acting beyond the bounds of his office seizes a stranger's property.
Thus. was registered and being sold in the Philippines under proper license from the Bureau of Food and Drugs. had been ordered through an admin case (BFAD.R. etc. The writ was issued to protect and preserve the right or license of the private respondent Boie-Takeda to market its product "Danzen" in the Philippines. etc) to recall the marketing plus cancellation of the registration of a certain drug(Danzen) manufactured by them which was found to be ineffective. which it has been doing since 1970 or for the past 17 years. CA Facts: G. 1988 Boie Takeda. That status quo is what the writ of preliminary injunction seeks to preserve pending a final determination of the merits of Boie-Takeda's petition for prelim injunction. No. Hence the object of the writ is to preserve the status quo. or the last actual peaceable uncontested status which preceded the pending controversy which. "Danzen" tablets. as correctly noted by the Court of Appeals. Issue: WON the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ. 82568 May 31. Held: No.Bengzon vs. as an ancillary or preventive remedy may only be resorted to by a litigant for the preservation or protection of his rights or interests. was that Boie-Takeda's product. a Phil corporation engaged in the manufacture of drugs. The status quo before the ban or withdrawal order was issued. A writ of preliminary injunction. The CA issued a TRO in their favour pending the hearing of the application for prelim injunction. . and for no other purpose. Boie Takeda prayed for the issuance in their favour of a writ of prelim injunction to restrain the Sec of Health from enforcing the Regulation against them. during the pendency of the principal action. "is the status before the withdrawal order" was issued.
the status quo. not preserve. the petitioners having failed to redeem them and DBP having consolidated its title thereto. No. DBP has every right to dispose of them. The issuance of the writ would no doubt upset. The last actual peaceable uncontested status that preceded the controversy is that DBP is the owner of the properties in dispute. 1992 Upon failure of Searth to pay their loan from DBP.R. its mortgages were foreclosed and were advertised to be sold by DBP. An order restraining the bidding was issued but such order was dissolved. The object of the writ is to preserve the status quo. 64220 March 31. As owner of. Held: No. CA Facts: G. Thus.Searth Commodities vs. . these properties. Issue: WON the issuance of a writ of prelim injunction is proper in this case. which is the last actual peaceable uncontested status that preceded the pending controversy. Searth prayed for the annulment the of real estate mortgage and the foreclosure sale plus a writ of injunction to enjoin the sale of their properties.
Held: No." . Asis filed an election protest seeking a judicial recount of the votes. An injunction "is not to protect contingent or future rights nor is it a remedy to enforce an abstract right. Cam Norte. he also took his oath of office. As Cereno appears to be the duly elected mayor of the aforesaid town. L-49140 June 26. Dictado G. 1944 Facts: Cereno was the duly elected mayor of Vinzons. The judge then issued an order that Cereno desist and refrain from continuing in acting as municipal mayor until further orders of the court. Issue: WON the injunction was proper.R. The respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion. No.Cereno vs. 1988. and acted in excess of his jurisdiction in ordering petitioner to desist and refrain from assuming office. The respondent judge is not justified in protecting private respondent Asis alleged right to the contested office when it has not yet been clearly established against petitioner whose right is actual and existing. the law mandates that he assume office on February 2.
Normandy vs. Duque .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?