Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1. CALO VS ROLDAN
ID.; PROVISIONAL REMEDIES; WHEN TO BE APPLIED FOR AND
GRANTED. The provisional remedies denominated
attachment, preliminary injunction, receivership, and delivery
of personal property, provided in Rules 59, 60, 61 and 62 of
the Rules of Court, respectively, are remedies to which parties
litigant may resort for the preservation or protection of their
rights or interests, and for no other purpose, during the
pendency of the principal action. If an action, by its nature,
does not require such protection or preservation, said
remedies can not be applied and granted. To each kind of
action or actions a proper provisional remedy is provided for
by law. The Rules of Court clearly specify the cases in which
they may be properly granted.
2. BORJA VS PLATON
1.ATTACHMENT; ISSUANCE IN FAVOR OF A DEFENDANT WHO
SETS UP A COUNTERCLAIM; DISCRETION OF TRIAL COURT. A
writ of preliminary attachment may be issued in favor of a
defendant who sets up a counterclaim. For the purpose of the
protection afforded by such attachment, it is immaterial
whether the defendants simply presented a counterclaim or
brought a separate civil action against the plaintiff. To lay
down a subtle distinction would be to sanction that formalism
and that technicality which are discountenanced by the
modern laws of procedure for the sake of speedy and
substantial justice.
3. PROFESSIONAL VIDEO VS TESDA
Jurisprudence teaches us that the rule on the issuance of a
writ of attachment must be construed strictly in favor of the
defendant. Attachment, a harsh remedy, must be issued only
on concrete and specific grounds and not on general
averments merely quoting the words of the pertinent rules. 42
Thus, the applicant's affidavit must contain statements clearly
showing that the ground relied upon for the attachment
exists.
Section 1 (d), Rule 57 of the Rules of Court applies where a
party is guilty of fraud in contracting a debt or incurring an
obligation, or in concealing or disposing of the property for the
taking, detention or conversion of which the action is brought.
In Wee v. Tankiansee, 43 we held that for a writ of attachment
to issue under this Rule, the applicant must sufficiently show
the factual circumstances of the alleged fraud because
fraudulent intent cannot be inferred from the debtor's mere
non-payment of the debt or failure to comply with his
obligation. The affidavit, being the foundation of the writ,
must contain particulars showing how the imputed fraud was
committed for the court to decide whether or not to issue the
writ. To reiterate, a writ of attachment can only be granted on
concrete and specific grounds and not on general averments
merely quoting the words of the rules. 44
4. LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION VS CA
1.REMEDIAL LAW; PROVISIONAL REMEDIES; ATTACHMENT;
REMEDY AGAINST A PARTY GUILTY IN CONTRACTING DEBT OR
INCURRING AN OBLIGATION. In an action against a party
who has been guilty of fraud in contracting the debt or
incurring the obligation upon which the action is brought,
Section 1 (d) of Rule 57 authorizes the plaintiff or any proper
party to have the property of the adverse party attached as
security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be
recovered therein. To sustain an attachment on this ground, it
must be shown that the debtor in contracting the debt or
incurring the obligation intended to defraud the creditor. The
fraud must relate to the execution of the agreement and must
have been the reason which induced the other party into
giving consent which he would not have otherwise given. To
constitute a ground for attachment in Section 1 (d), Rule 57 of
the Rules of Court, fraud should be committed upon
contracting the obligation sued upon.
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
14. LIMITLESS POTENTIALS VS CA
A preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy that a party
may resort to in order to preserve and protect certain rights
and interests during the pendency of an action. 19 It is an
order granted at any stage of an action, prior to the judgment
or final order, requiring a party, court, agency or person to
perform or to refrain from performing a particular act or acts.
A preliminary injunction, as the term itself suggests, is merely
temporary, subject to the final disposition of the principal
action. 20 It is issued to preserve the status quo ante, which is
the last actual, peaceful, and uncontested status that
preceded the actual controversy, 21 in order to protect the
the merits. What was preserved by the RTC was the state of
affairs before the issuance of Resolution No. 001, which
approved the structure of the OWWA, and the subsequent
administrative orders pursuant to its passing. The RTC forgot
that what is imperative in preliminary injunction cases is that
the writ can not be effectuated to establish new relations
between the parties.
23. DUNGOG VS CA (status quo def)
ID.; PROVISIONAL REMEDIES; PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION;
DEFINED; PURPOSE THEREOF TO PRESERVE THE STATUS QUO
OF THE MATTER SUBJECT OF THE ACTION; CONSTRUED.
Preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an
action, prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a party,
court, agency or person to perform or to refrain from
performing a particular act or acts. A preliminary injunction,
as the term itself suggests, is merely temporary, subject to
the final disposition of the principal action. Its purpose is to
preserve the statusquo of the matter subject of the action to
protect the rights of the plaintiff during the pendency of the
suit. Otherwise, if no preliminary injunction is issued, the
defendant may, before final judgment, do the act which the
plaintiff is seeking the court to restrain. This will make
ineffectual the final judgment that the court may afterwards
render in granting relief to the plaintiff. The issuance of a writ
of preliminary injunction rests entirely within the discretion of
the court and is generally not interfered with except in cases
of manifest abuse. The assessment and evaluation of
evidence in the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction
involve findings of facts ordinarily left to the trial court for its
conclusive determination.
Against whom is injunction issued:
24. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY VS CA
The possibility that the officers and employees of the
recruitment agencies, which are members of the respondent,
and their relatives who are employed in the government
agencies charged in the enforcement of the law, would be
indicted for illegal recruitment and, if convicted sentenced to
life imprisonment for large scale illegal recruitment, absent
proof of irreparable injury, is not sufficient on which to base
the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to suspend the
enforcement of the penal provisions of Rep. Act No. 8042 and
avert any indictments under the law. 48 The normal course of
criminal prosecutions cannot be blocked on the basis of
allegations which amount to speculations about the future. 49
25. MABAYO FARM VS CA
1.REMEDIAL LAW; PROVISIONAL REMEDIES; PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION; CANNOT BIND A PERSON WHO IS NOT A PARTY IN
THE MAIN SUIT; CASE AT BAR. A preliminary injunction is an
order granted at any stage of an action prior to final
judgment, requiring a person to refrain from a particular act.
As an ancillary or preventive remedy, a writ of preliminary
injunction may therefore 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 can be heard. It is not a
cause of action in itself but merely a provisional remedy, an
adjunct to a main suit. Thus, a person who is not a party in the
main suit, like private respondent in the instant case, cannot
be bound by an ancillary writ, such as the writ of preliminary
injunction issued against the defendants in Civil Case No.
6695. He cannot be affected by any proceeding to which he is
a stranger.
2.ID.; ACTIONS; INTERVENTION; NOT COMPULSORY.
Intervention in an action is neither compulsory nor mandatory
but only optional and permissive.
3.ID.; ID.; ID.; REQUISITES. [T]o 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
PHILIPPINE
BOARD
VS
ANTONIO-
RECEIVERSHIP
1.
Definition (Section 1)
a. Compania General de Tabacos Vs Gauzon
RECEIVERS;
POWERS,
DUTIES,
AND
RESPONSIBILITIES. A receiver is generally
defined to be an indifferent person
between the parties litigant, appointed
by the court and on behalf of all the
parties, and not of the plaintiff or
defendant only, to receive and hold the
thing or property in litigation, pending the
suit, to receive the rents, issues, or profits of
the land or thing in question, to hold
possession and control of the property
which is the subject-matter of the litigation
and to dispose of it in such manner as
may be directed by the court. He is the arm
and hand of the court, a part of the
machinery of the court, by which the rights
of the parties are protected. He is required
not only to preserve the property, but to
protect the rights of all the parties
interested.
ID.; LIMITED AUTHORITY TO INCUR EXPENSE
WITHOUT EXPRESS PERMISSION OF THE
COURT. Generally a receiver has no
authority to incur any expense in the
administration of his receivership, without
express permission of the court, except it
It
may
be
that
very
special
circumstances may exist, in a given case,
involving great danger of loss, such as may
be caused by a debtor's nonresidence,
which will justify the appointment of a
receiver, but the case at bar is not one of
that character.
9. Appointment
e. Commodities Storage and Ice Plant Vs CA [G.R. No.
125008. June 19, 1997.]
Moreover, the receiver appointed by the
court appears to be a representative of
petitioners. Respondent bank alleges that
it was not aware that petitioners nominated
one Mr. Pesquera as receiver. The general
rule is that neither party to a litigation
should be appointed as receiver without
the consent of the other because a
receiver should be a person indifferent to
the parties and should be impartial and
disinterested. The receiver is not the
representative of any of the parties but of all
of them to the end that their interests may
be equally protected with the least possible
inconvenience and expense.
The power to appoint a receiver must be
exercised with extreme caution. There
must be a clear showing of necessity
therefor in order to save the plaintiff from
grave and irremediable loss or damage. It is
only when the circumstances so demand,
either because there is imminent danger
that the property sought to be placed in the
hands of a receiver be lost or because they
run the risk of being impaired, endeavouring
to avoid that the injury thereby caused be
greater than the one sought to be avoided.
10. Jurisdiction
f. Harden Vs Director of Prisons [G.R. No. L-2349.
October 22, 1948.]
The fact that the property is in a foreign
country is said to deprive the court of
jurisdiction, the remedy in such case
being,
it
is
contended,
ancillary
receivership. We can not agree with
this view.
2.
j.
ID.; ID.; ID.; INTEREST OF APPLICANT.
Section of Rule 61 requires that the party
applying for the appointment of receiver
should have "an interest in the
property which is the subject of the
action." This rule envisions actual,
existing interest.
i.
1999.]
The Court of Appeals found that the
requirements of Section 5, Rule 59 on
receivership were not complied with by
the petitioner, particularly the filing or
posting of a bond and the taking of an
oath. It should be noted that under the
old Rules of Court which was in effect at
the time this case was still at trial stage, a
bond for the appointment of a receiver
was not generally required of the
applicant, except when the application
was made ex parte. Therefore, petitioner
was not absolutely required to file a bond.
Besides, as stipulated in the chattel
mortgage contract between the parties,
petitioner, as the mortgagee, is entitled to
the appointment of a receiver without a
bond. However, the Court of Appeals was
right in finding a defect in such
assumption of receivership in that the
requirement of taking an oath has not
been complied with. Consequently, the
trial court erred in allowing the petitioner
to assume receivership over the machine
1944.]
insufficient
realizable
assets, as determined
by the Bangko Sentral,
to meet its liabilities; or
of garnishment,
attachment,
execution.
levy,
or
Good
moral
character,
independence
and
integrity;
He
is
related
by
consanguinity or affinity
within the fourth civil
degree to any director,
officer or stockholder
charged
with
mismanagement,
dissipation or wastage
of the properties of the
entity
under
management.
SECTION 5. Powers and Functions of the
Management Committee. Upon assumption to
office of the management committee, the receiver
shall immediately render a report and turn over
the management and control of the entity under
his receivership to the management committee.
The management committee shall have the power to
take custody of and control all assets and properties
owned or possessed by the entity under
management. It shall take the place of the
management and board of directors of the entity
under management, assume their rights and
responsibilities, and preserve the entity's assets and
properties in its possession.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the
management committee shall exercise the following
powers and functions:
(1)
To
(6)
To
To
To
recommend
the
termination
of
the
proceedings and the
dissolution of the entity
if it determines that the
continuance in business
of such entity is no
longer
feasible
or
profitable or no longer
works
to
the
best
interest
of
the
stockholders,
partieslitigants, creditors or the
general public;
To
Upon termination
proceedings.
of
the
Nowhere
in
the
aforequoted
paragraph can it be inferred that an
affirmative vote of stockholders
representing at least two-thirds (2/3)
of the outstanding stock is invariably
necessary for the filing of a petition for
rehabilitation regardless of the corporate
action that the plan envisions. Just to the
contrary, it only requires in the filing of
the petition that the corporate actions
therein
proposed
have
been
duly
approved or consented to by the directors
and stockholders "in consonance with
existing laws." The requirement is
designed to avoid a situation where a
rehabilitation plan, after being developed
and
judicially
sanctioned,
cannot
ultimately be seen through because of the
refusal of directors or stockholders to
cooperate in the full implementation of
the plan. In fine, a certification on the
approval of stockholders is required but
the question, whether such approval
should be by a majority or by a two-thirds
(2/3) vote of the outstanding capital
stock, would depend on the existing
law vis-a-vis the corporate act or acts
proposed to be done in the rehabilitation
of the distressed corporation.
The rehabilitation plan 7 submitted by
petitioner merely consists of a repayment or
re-structuring scheme of CRDC's bank loans
Nature
a. BA Finance Corporation Vs CA [G.R. No. 102998. July
5, 1996.]
Replevin, broadly understood, is both a form of
principal remedy and of a provisional relief. It
may refer either to the action itself, i.e., to regain the
possession of personal chattels being wrongfully
detained from the plaintiff by another, or to the
provisional remedy that would allow the plaintiff to
retain the thing during the pendency of the action
and hold it pendente lite. The action is primarily
possessory in nature and generally determines
nothing more than the right of possession. Replevin
is so usually described as a mixed action, being
partly in rem and partly in personam in
rem insofar as the recovery of specific property is
concerned, and in personam as regards to damages
involved. As an "action in rem," the gist of the
replevin action is the right of the plaintiff to obtain
possession of specific personal property by reason of
his being the owner or of his having a special interest
therein. Consequently, the person in possession
of
the
property
sought
to
be
replevied
is ordinarily the proper and only necessary
party defendant, and the plaintiff is not required
to so join as defendants other persons claiming
a right on the property but not in possession
thereof. Rule 60 of the Rules of Court allows an
application for the immediate possession of the
property but the plaintiff must show that he has a
good legal basis, i.e., a clear title thereto, for seeking
such interim possession.
A chattel mortgagee, unlike a pledgee, need not be
in, nor entitled to the possession of the property
unless and until the mortgagor defaults and the
mortgagee thereupon seeks to foreclose thereon.
Since the mortgagee's right of possession is
conditioned upon the actual fact of default
which itself may be controverted, the inclusion
of other parties, like the debtor or the
mortgagor himself, may be required in order to
allow a full and conclusive determination of the
case. When the mortgagee seeks a replevin in order
to effect the eventual foreclosure of the mortgage, it
is not only the existence of, but also the mortgagor's
default on, the chattel mortgage that, among other
things, can properly uphold the right to replevy the
property. The burden to establish a valid justification
for that action lies with the plaintiff. An adverse
Application
a. Servicewide Specialists Inc. Vs CA [G.R. No.
110048. November 19, 1999.]
In a suit for replevin, a clear right of
possession must be established. (Italics
supplied) A foreclosure under a chattel mortgage
may properly be commenced only once there is
default on the part of the mortgagor of his
obligation secured by the mortgage. The
replevin in this case has been resorted to in
order to pave the way for the foreclosure of what
is covered by the chattel mortgage. The
conditions essential for such foreclosure would
be to show, firstly, the existence of the chattel
mortgage and, secondly, the default of the
mortgagor. These requirements must be shown
because the validity of the plaintiff's exercise of
the right of foreclosure is inevitably dependent
thereon.
Leticia
Laus
(mortgagor),
being
an
indispensable party (because Servicewide
filed for replevin only on the possers), should
have been impleaded in the complaint for
replevin and damages. An indispensable party is
one whose interest will be affected by the court's
action in the litigation, and without whom no
final determination of the case can be had. The
party's interest in the subject matter of the suit
and in the relief sought are so inextricably
intertwined with the other parties that his legal
presence as a party to the proceeding is an
absolute necessity. In his absence, there
cannot be a resolution of the dispute of the
parties before the Court which is effective,
complete, or equitable.
4.
6.
Duty of Sheriff
7.
Enforcement
a. Fernandez Vs International Corporate Bank [G.R.
No. 131283. October 7, 1999.]
Under the Resolution of the Supreme Court en
banc, dated January 11, 1983, providing for the
interim rules and guidelines relative to the
implementation of BP 129, a writ of replevin
like the one issued in the present case may be
served anywhere
in the Philippines.
Specifically, the said Resolution states: "3. Writs
and processes. (a) Writs of certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, habeas
corpus and injunction issued by a regional trial
court may be enforced in any part of the region.
(b) All other processes, whether issued by a
regional trial court or a metropolitan trial court,
municipal trial court or municipal circuit trial
court may be served anywhere in the
Philippines, and, in the last three cases, without
a certification by the judge of the regional trial
court." Thus, the Writ of Replevin issued by
Judge Paas, which obviously does not fall
under item "a" of the abovecited Rule, may
be validly enforced anywhere in the
Philippines.
Petitioners
confused
the
jurisdiction of a court to hear and decide a case
on the one hand with, on the other, its power to
issue writs and processes pursuant to and in the
exercise of said jurisdiction.
Order
a. Sergs Products Inc Vs PCI Leasing [G.R. No.
137705. August 22, 2000.]
In the present case, the Lease Agreement
clearly provides that the machines in
question are to be considered as personal
property. Specifically, Section 12.1 of the
Agreement reads as follows: "12.1 The
PROPERTY is, and shall at all times be and
remain, personal property notwithstanding that
the PROPERTY or any part thereof may now be,
or hereafter become, in any manner affixed or
attached to or embedded in, or permanently
resting upon, real property or any building
thereon, or attached in any manner to what is
permanent." Clearly then, petitioners are
estopped
from
denying
the
characterization of the subject machines as
personal property. Under the circumstances,
they are proper subjects of the Writ of Seizure. It
should be stressed, however, that our holding
that the machines should be deemed personal
property pursuant to the Lease Agreement is
good only insofar as the contracting
parties are concerned. Hence, while the
parties are bound by the Agreement, third
persons acting in good faith are not
affected by its stipulation characterizing
the subject machinery as personal. In any
event, there is no showing that any specific third
party would be adversely affected.
The validity and the nature of the contract are
the lis mota of the civil action pending before
the RTC. A resolution of these questions,
therefore, is effectively a resolution of the merits
of the case. Hence, they should be threshed out
in the trial, not in the proceedings involving the
issuance of the Writ of Seizure. Indeed, in La
Tondea Distillers v. CA, the Court explained that
the policy under Rule 60 was that questions
involving title to the subject property
questions which petitioners are now raising
should be determined in the trial. In that case,
the Court noted that the remedy of defendants
under Rule 60 was either to post a counterbond or to question the sufficiency of the
plaintiff's bond. They were not allowed,
however, to invoke the title to the subject
property. The Court ruled: "In other words, the
law does not allow the defendant to file a motion
to dissolve or discharge the writ of seizure (or
delivery) on ground of insufficiency of the
complaint or of the grounds relied upon therefor,
as in proceedings on preliminary attachment or
injunction, and thereby put at issue the matter
of the title or right of possession over the
specific chattel being replevied, the policy
apparently being that said matter should be
ventilated and determined only at the trial on
the merits."
Return of Property
9.
c.
MARRIAGE
AND
DIVORCE;
ALIMONY;
PROHIBITION. Where the answer to a
complaint alleging marriage and praying
for a divorce denies the fact of marriage,
the court exceeds its jurisdiction in granting
alimony, and the enforcement of an order
granting it will be restrained by the writ of
prohibition.
d.
e.
Application
b. Francisco Vs Zandueta [G.R. No. 43794. August
9, 1935.]
PARENT AND CHILD; SUPPORT OF CHILD
WHILE HIS CIVIL STATUS IS IN LITIGATION. In
the present case the action for support is
brought by a minor, through his guardian ad
litem, who alleges that he is the son of the
petitioner; therefore it is necessary for
him to prove his civil status as such son.
His alleged civil status being in litigation, it is
g.
Comment
4.
Hearing
5.
Order
h. Mangonon Vs CA [G.R. No. 125041. June 30,
2006.]
Under this provision, a court may temporarily
grant support pendente lite prior to the
rendition of judgment or final order. Because
of its provisional nature, a court does not
need to delve fully into the merits of the
case before it can settle an application for
this relief. All that a court is tasked to do is
determine the kind and amount of evidence
which may suffice to enable it to justly resolve
Enforcement of Order
Support in Criminal Cases
8.
Restitution
i.