ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
January-2000 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 123951 January 10, 2000 - ROMEO RANOLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-00-1360 January 18, 2000 - ELISEO SOREÑO v. RHODERICK MAXINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114683 January 18, 2000 - JESUS C. OCAMPO v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118441-42 January 18, 2000 - ARMANDO JOSE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119594 January 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENZON ONG

  • G.R. No. 125994 January 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN ANDALES

  • G.R. No. 127135 January 18, 2000 - EASTERN ASSURANCE AND SURETY CORP. (EASCO) v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129846 January 18, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130944 January 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE ALIB, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131675 January 18, 2000 - PEDRO C. LAMEYRA v. GEORGE S. PANGILINAN

  • G.R. No. 132378 January 18, 2000 - ROGELIO JUAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 132767 January 18, 2000 - PHIL. VETERANS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134854 January 18, 2000 - FELIZARDO S. OBANDO, ET AL. v. EDUARDO F. FIGUERAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139465 January 18, 2000 - SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v. RALPH C. LANTION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1245 January 19, 2000 - ANTONIO YU-ASENSI v. FRANCISCO D. VILLANUEVA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-97-1129 January 19, 2000 - FLAVIANO B. CORTES v. FELINO BANGALAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1513 January 19, 2000 - ALFREDO B. ENOJAS v. EUSTAQUIO Z. GACOTT

  • G.R. No. 107320 January 19, 2000 - A’ PRIME SECURITY SERVICES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 113666-68 January 19, 2000 - GOLDEN DONUTS, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114761 January 19, 2000 - ALEMAR’S SIBAL & SONS v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119217 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL S. LUCBAN

  • G.R. No. 122104 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEPITO ORBITA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 122297-98 January 19, 2000 - CRESCENTE Y. LLORENTE v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122739 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE M. PANTORILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123655 January 19, 2000 - ANGEL BAUTISTA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123183 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN SISON

  • G.R. No. 126516 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SHIRLEY ALAO

  • G.R. No. 127572 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR VILLAR

  • G.R. No. 129072 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO ABUBU

  • G.R. No. 130957 January 19, 2000 - VH MANUFACTURING v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132152 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO ADRALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132248 January 19, 2000 - ERLINDA C. PEFIANCO v. MARIA LUISA C. MORAL

  • G.R. No. 132657 January 19, 2000 - WILLIAM DIU, ET AL. v. DOMINADOR IBAJAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 132779-82 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DONATO BERNALDEZ

  • G.R. No. 134003 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERT NAGUM

  • G.R. No. 134329 January 19, 2000 - VERONA PADA-KILARIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134535 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO MAGNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137560 January 19, 2000 - MARIA G. CRUZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 4749 January 20, 2000 - SOLIMAN M. SANTOS, JR. v. FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-00-1241 January 20, 2000 - NAPOLEON S. VALENZUELA v. REYNALDO B. BELLOSILLO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1242 January 20, 2000 - DANIEL DUMO, ET AL. v. ROMEO V. PEREZ

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1522 January 20, 2000 - ROMULO SJ TOLENTINO v. POLICARPIO S. CAMANO

  • G.R. No. 76371 January 20, 2000 - MARIANO TURQUESA, ET AL. v. ROSARIO VALERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87134 January 20, 2000 - PHIL. REGISTERED ELECTRICAL PRACTITIONERS, ET AL. v. JULIO FRANCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 100718-19 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FREDDIE JUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106282 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. QUINCIANO RENDOQUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108067 January 20, 2000 - CYANAMID PHIL., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109376 January 20, 2000 - PANFILO O. DOMINGO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110807 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALD T. NARVASA

  • G.R. No. 110929 January 20, 2000 - ABELARDO LOPEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119652 & A.M. No. P-00-1358 January 20, 2000 - VENTURA O. DUCAT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123860 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN NAAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125451 January 20, 2000 - MARCIANA MUÑOZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126151 January 20, 2000 - MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, ET AL. v. SERGIO D. MABUNAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128887 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. EDGARDO AQUINO

  • G.R. No. 130713 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GABRIEL FLORES

  • G.R. No. 130986 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR PAILANCO

  • G.R. No. 131512 January 20, 2000 - LAND TRANSPORTATION OFFICE [LTO] v. CITY OF BUTUAN

  • G.R. No. 132368 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACITO GARCES, JR.

  • G.R. No. 133775 January 20, 2000 - FIDEL DABUCO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131894-98 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. JESUS DOCENA

  • G.R. No. 134167 January 20, 2000 - NASSER IMMAM v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125965 January 21, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PATRICIO GOZANO

  • G.R. No. 133477 January 21, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN RAFALES

  • G.R. No. 135904 January 21, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALVIN TAN

  • G.R. Nos. 89591-96 January 24, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA

  • G.R. No. 100518 January 24, 2000 - ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS (ATU), ET AL. v. OSCAR N. ABELLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101932 January 24, 2000 - FRANCISCO H. ESCAÑO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111285 January 24, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE VALLA

  • G.R. No. 116066 January 24, 2000 - NUEVA ECIJA I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124715 January 24, 2000 - RUFINA LUY LIM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125031 January 24, 2000 - PERMEX INC., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129693 January 24, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUDY CORTES

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1525 January 25, 2000 - MARTIN D. PANTALEON v. TEOFILO L. GUADIZ, JR.

  • G.R. No. 80129 January 25, 2000 - GERARDO RUPA, SR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 102706 January 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON LUMILAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107427 January 25, 2000 - JAMES R. BRACEWELL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113518 January 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTEBAN ARLEE

  • G.R. No. 113684 January 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO GALLARDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116332 January 25, 2000 - BAYNE ADJUSTERS AND SURVEYORS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119595 January 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOVITO BARONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120267 January 25, 2000 - CLARA ESPIRITU BORLONGAN, ET AL. v. CONSUELO MADRIDEO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121439 January 25, 2000 - AKLAN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INCORPORATED (AKELCO) v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129246 January 25, 2000 - GREENFIELD REALTY CORP., ET AL. v. LORETO CARDAMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131633-34 January 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESENCIANO ENOLVA

  • G.R. No. 133132 January 25, 2000 - ALEXIS C. CANONIZADO, ET AL. v. ALEXANDER P. AGUIRRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135874 January 25, 2000 - SECURITY BANK CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 99-12-192-MTC January 26, 2000 - HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER ISSUED BY ACTING JUDGE ANICETO L. MADRONIO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1524 January 26, 2000 - LUCIA F. LAYOLA v. BASILIO R. GABO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 107395 January 26, 2000 - TOURIST DUTY FREE SHOPS v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126115 January 26, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO BALGOS

  • G.R. No. 131374 January 26, 2000 - ABBOTT LABORATORIES PHIL. v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES EMPLOYEES UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133842 January 26, 2000 - FEDERICO S. SANDOVAL v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133969 January 26, 2000 - NEMESIO GARCIA v. NICOLAS JOMOUAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 102961-62, 107625 & 108759 January 27, 2000 - JESUS P. LIAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117040 January 27, 2000 - RUBEN SERRANO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130843 January 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZOILO BORROMEO

  • Adm. Case No. 1474 January 28, 2000 - CRISTINO G. CALUB v. ABRAHAM SULLER

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1246 January 28, 2000 - HEIRS OF JUAN and NATIVIDAD GERMINANDA v. RICARDO SALVANERA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1211 January 28, 2000 - ZENAIDA S. BESO v. JUAN DAGUMAN

  • A.M. No. P-93-985 January 28, 2000 - MARTA BUCATCAT v. EDGAR BUCATCAT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112177 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TITO ZUELA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112329 January 28, 2000 - VIRGINIA A. PEREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115824 January 28, 2000 - RAFAEL M. ALUNAN III, ET AL. v. MAXIMIANO C. ASUNCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125279 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS TANAIL

  • G.R. No. 124129 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO BRIGILDO

  • G.R. Nos. 124384-86 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMENCIANO "OMENG" RICAFRANCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125671 January 28, 2000 - CONDO SUITE CLUB TRAVEL v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125865 January 28, 2000 - JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG) v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 126802 January 28, 2000 - ROBERTO G. ALARCON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127568 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO BACULE

  • G.R. Nos. 129756-58 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN DEEN ESCAÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131520 January 28, 2000 - ESTELITA AGUIRRE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131778 January 28, 2000 - HERMAN TIU LAUREL v. PRESIDING JUDGE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132138 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ROMEO LLAMO

  • G.R. No. 133486 January 28, 2000 - ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP. v. COMELEC

  • G.R. No. 133987 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNNY BARTOLOME

  • G.R. No. 136805 January 28, 2000 - DIESEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC. v. JOLLIBEE FOODS CORP.

  • G.R. No. 137537 January 28, 2000 - SMI DEVT. CORP. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 137718 January 28, 2000 - REYNALDO O. MALONZO, ET AL. v. RONALDO B. ZAMORA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139545 January 28, 2000 - MAIMONA H. N. M. S. DIANGKA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1226 January 31, 2000 - GLORIA LUCAS v. AMELIA A. FABROS

  • G.R. Nos. 88521-22 & 89366-67 January 31, 2000 - HEIRS OF EULALIO RAGUA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105827 January 31, 2000 - J.L. BERNARDO CONSTRUCTION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112139 January 31, 2000 - LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL DEVT. CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115045 January 31, 2000 - UNIVERSITY PHYSICIANS SERVICES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116729 January 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARLON LERIO

  • G.R. No. 120706 January 31, 2000 - RODRIGO CONCEPCION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123094 January 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUISITO PAGLINAWAN

  • G.R. No. 125440 January 31, 2000 - GENERAL BANK AND TRUST CO., ET AL. v. OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127797 January 31, 2000 - ALEJANDRO MILLENA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128536 January 31, 2000 - ROQUE G. GALANG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128607 January 31, 2000 - ALFREDO MALLARI SR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129071 January 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO MILLIAM, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 129505 & 133359 January 31, 2000 - OCTAVIO S. MALOLES II v. PACITA DE LOS REYES PHILLIPS

  • G.R. No. 130104 January 31, 2000 - ELIZABETH SUBLAY v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130666 January 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CASIMIRO JOSE

  • G.R. No. 134437 January 31, 2000 - NATIONAL STEEL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139758 January 31, 2000 - LUCIEN TRAN VAN NGHIA v. RUFUS B. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 110929   January 20, 2000 - ABELARDO LOPEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 110929. January 20, 2000.]

    SPS. ABELARDO & CONCHITA LOPEZ, and SPS. ANTONIO & CONCHITA MANANSALA, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS and ROBERTO VALLARTA, Respondents.

    D E C I S I O N


    BUENA, J.:


    This petition for review on certiorari assails the decision, 1 dated March 29, 1993, of the Court of Appeals which denied due course and dismissed CA-G.R. SP. No. 30072, in effect affirming the Orders dated December 29, 1992 2 and January 14, 1993, 3 of the Regional Trial Court of Macabebe, Pampanga, Branch 54, (1) granting the issuance of a mandatory injunction requiring the petitioners to surrender the fishpond, subject of the complaint, to private respondent; and (2) allowing private respondent to harvest the contents thereof, respectively.chanrobles.com : virtuallawlibrary

    The present controversy traces its roots to the complaint for recovery of possession, damages and injunction, filed by private respondent against petitioners. The complaint alleges, inter alia: that respondent had been in actual, peaceful and lawful possession of Lots 3305, 3329, 3331 and 3324 with a combined area of 57 hectares, situated at sitio Teracan, Consuelo, Macabebe, Pampanga, except for the short interruption in 1981 until October 17, 1981; that on June 2, 1981, respondent filed a fishpond application for lease agreement covering Lots No. 3324, 3329 and 3331 covering 40,1449 hectares; that on July 22, 1981, the Minister of Natural Resources declared a portion of Masantol, Pampanga, containing an area of 4,574.8 hectares, including the area applied for by private respondent as alienable and disposable for fishpond development; that on July 13, 1988, the Department of Agriculture, Regional Office No. III, San Fernando, Pampanga, issued a report of inspection declaring respondent and one Guil Rivera in actual possession of their respective fishpond areas and have fully developed the same since 1976; that on October 17, 1990, petitioners unlawfully entered and occupied 34 hectares of the respondent’s fishpond ejecting him from the same. Respondent prays that he be restored possession of the lots in question and that a preliminary injunction be issued to maintain the status quo. 4

    Traversing respondent’s allegations, petitioners contend that they have been in actual physical and peaceful possession of the land since time immemorial; that in 1976 petitioners and private respondent entered into an agreement whereby the latter will provide capital for the development of the fishpond while petitioners labor and management, the income to be divided between them; that the relationship went on smoothly until 1981 when they were ejected from the premises by one Marcelino Marcos; that they filed an ejectment complaint before the courts; that the Supreme Court in a decision promulgated on June 30, 1987 in G.R. No. 74957 upheld their possession; that sometime in April 1990, petitioners were physically ejected from the land by respondent but returned to the land on August 17, 1990; that since October 17, 1990 up to the filing of the complaint, respondent has been harassing them with threats and arson. 5

    A hearing on the application for preliminary injunction was held on December 29, 1992 with private respondent presenting his evidence. The petitioners did not present any testimonial evidence and adopted respondent’s exhibit as their own evidence.chanrobles.com.ph : red

    Based on the evidence presented, the trial court on December 29, 1992 granted respondent’s prayer for injunction as contained in its Order the decretal portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "WHEREFORE, upon all the foregoing consideration and circumstances, a preliminary mandatory injunction is hereby issued against the defendants Abelardo Lopez, Conchita Lopez, Antonio Manansala and Conchita Manansala and/or other persons acting for and in their behalf directing them to surrender possession, control, occupancy and administration of the fishpond in question and to refrain in any manner from molesting the plaintiff, his agent or representatives in the peaceful possession of the fishpond in question.

    This order shall not be effective unless the plaintiff files with the Clerk of this Court a bond executed to the defendants to the effect that plaintiff will pay to such parties such damages which may be sustained by reason of this injunction if the Court should finally decide that the plaintiff is not entitled thereto in the amount of P100,000.00.

    SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Petitioners moved for the inhibition of the presiding judge which was granted by the court on January 7, 1993. 6

    On January 8, 1993, pursuant to the trial court’s order, a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction was issued. 7

    Thereafter, private respondent filed a motion to allow him to harvest the contents of the fishpond and to deposit the proceeds of the sale after the harvest, which was granted on January 14, 1993. The trial court’s order disposed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "After going over the two motions referred to above, the court hereby orders: 1. Allowing the harvest of the contents of the fishpond by the personnel of this court with a representative of the plaintiffs and defendants observing; 2. To deposit to the court the proceeds of the sale after the harvest; . . ." 8

    Petitioners assailed the aforesaid orders before the Court of Appeals which dismissed the same. The motion for reconsideration was likewise denied on July 5, 1993.

    Petitioners now come to this Court arguing that the issuance of the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction ordering them to surrender the possession and control of the fishpond effectively transferred the possession thereof from petitioner to private respondent in violation of the settled jurisprudence that injunction cannot be used or resorted to, to take possession of the property from one person to another. Petitioners likewise assert that the issuance of the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction and placing the private respondent in possession of the disputed lot virtually resolved the issue of possession and disposed of the main case without hearing on the merits, leaving no issue for the trial court to decide save that of damages.

    The petition should be denied.

    Generally, injunction is a preservative remedy for the protection of one’s substantive right or interest. It is not a cause of action in itself but merely a provisional remedy, an adjunct to a main suit. It is resorted to only when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences which cannot be remedied under any standard compensation. The application of the injunctive writ rests upon the existence of an emergency or of a special reason before the main case can be regularly heard. The essential conditions for granting such temporary injunctive relief are that the complaint alleges facts which appear to be sufficient to constitute a proper basis for injunction and that on the entire showing from the contending parties, the injunction is reasonably necessary to protect the legal rights of the plaintiff pending the litigation. 9 Two requisites are necessary if a preliminary injunction is to issue, namely, the existence of a right to be protected and the facts against which the injunction is to be directed are violative of said right. 10 In particular, for a writ of preliminary injunction to issue, the existence of the right and the violation must appear in the allegation of the complaint and a preliminary injunction is proper only when the plaintiff (private respondent herein) appears to be entitled to the relief demanded in his complaint. 11

    In the case at bar, private respondent has sufficiently established his right over the subject fishpond. The evidence presented by the private respondent during the hearing for the issuance of the preliminary injunction, consisting of the following:chanrobles virtuallawlibrary

    1. Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F and its submarkings to show that petitioners Abelardo Lopez and Antonio Manansala are fishpond guards of private respondent;

    2. Exhibit G — a document from then Ministry of Natural Resources, Bureau of Forest Development showing that the land in dispute is an alienable and disposable land of the public domain suitable for fishpond development;

    3. Exhibit H — application for Lease Agreement with the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) in favor of private respondent;

    4. Exhibit I — official receipts proving that respondent paid the corresponding lease rentals to the BFAR for the lots in question

    5. Exhibit J — Order dated February 7, 1991 of the BFAR recognizing the possession of respondent and Gil Rivera over the lots in question and the payment of the lease rentals. It further states that the possession of the lots and the development thereof into a fishpond by respondent is recognized by the said bureau and that all persons/group other than the applicants are deemed illegal;

    6. Exhibit K — shows the possession of the four lots

    7. Exhibit L — statement of Antonio Manansala, Armando Garcia and Abelardo Lopez establishing that Manansala and Abelardo are fishpond guards;

    8. Exhibit M — complaint filed by respondent and Antonio Manansala and Abelardo Lopez, for ejectment which recognizes the fact that Manansala and Lopez are fishpond guards;

    9. Exhibit N — respondent has obtained a writ of preliminary injunction by virtue of which he was placed back in possession over the property in question;

    10. Exhibit O — shows that a preliminary, prohibitory and mandatory injunction was issued in Civil Case No. 73-0383-M before then Court of First Instance of Pampanga enjoining the harvesting of the milkfish, introducing and planting bangus fry and ordering that respondent be restored into the possession of the properties in question;

    11. Exhibit P — is a decision of the Supreme Court dated June 30, 1987 recognizing the rights of possession of the respondent and petitioners and that respondent was the one who developed the lots in question which was originally a swamp land to make it suitable for fishpond purposes;chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

    12. Exhibits Q, R — to establish the fact that petitioners received certain amounts from the respondent as salary for their services as fishpond guards;

    13. Exhibits S, T, and U — complaints against respondent showing that several cases against him were filed by petitioners;

    14. Exhibit V — to show that petitioners were in possession of a portion of the properties in question claiming that they are the rightful possessors of the said area. 12

    undoubtedly show private respondent’s legal right to possess the subject fishpond. The evidence reveals that the land in dispute is covered by an Application for Lease Agreement with the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources in favor of herein private respondent; that private respondent paid the lease rentals thereof; that the Bureau of Fisheries recognized his possession over the lot in question and that all other persons and/or group of persons other than the applicants are deemed illegal. It also discloses that petitioners are only fishpond guards of the private Respondent. No evidence was introduced by the petitioners to refute such claim and merely adopted the evidence introduced by the private Respondent.

    Based on the evidences thus presented, we find the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction to be proper.

    It is worth stressing too that the assessment and evaluation of evidence in the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction involves findings of facts ordinarily left to the trial court for its conclusive determination.

    We have time and again ruled that conclusions and findings of fact by the trial court are entitled to great weight and should not be disturbed on appeal, unless strong and cogent reasons dictate otherwise. This is because the trial court is in a better position to examine the real evidence, as well as to observe the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying in the case. 13

    In this case, we find no justifiable reason or exception sufficient to deviate from this settled rule.

    WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

    SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtua| |aw |ibrary

    Bellosillo, Mendoza, Quisumbing and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Penned by Justice Santiago M. Kapunan (now Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) and concurred in by Justices Alfredo M. Marigomen and Cancio C. Garcia.

    2. Annex "A", pp. 12-15, CA-Rollo.

    3. Annex "C", p. 18, Ibid.

    4. Complaint, Annex "D", pp. 19-25, CA-Rollo.

    5. Annex "E", pp. 29-36, CA-Rollo.

    6. Annex "B," pp. 16-17, CA-Decision.

    "Against the above backdrop and be that as it may in order to remove all clouds of doubt being entertained by the defendants, the undersigned presiding judge hereby voluntarily inhibits and disqualifies himself from trying the case.

    "This case is therefore referred to Branch 55 of this Court for further proceedings provided that the presiding judge of the said branch will have no objection."cralaw virtua1aw library

    7. Annex "F", p. 37, Ibid.

    8. Annex "C", p. 18, CA Rollo.

    9. Philippine Airlines v. NLRC, 287 SCRA 672 [1998].

    10. Araneta v. Gatmaitan, 101 Phil 328 (1957); del Rosario v. Court of Appeals, 255 SCRA 152 (1996); Philip Morris Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 224 SCRA 576 (1993) Searth Commodities Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 207 SCRA 622 [1992] cited in Republic v. Silerio, 272 SCRA 280 [1997].

    11. Ortigas & Company, Limited Partnership v. Ruiz, 148 SCRA 326 [1987].

    12. See CA Decision pp. 4-6.

    13. Donato v. Court of Appeals, 217 SCRA 196 [1993].

    G.R. No. 110929   January 20, 2000 - ABELARDO LOPEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED