PROVISIONAL REMEDIES

1. a. ) Preliminary Attachment vs. Preliminary Injunction b 1. a.) Preliminary Attachment vs. Preliminary Injunction b.) Doctrine of prior or contemporaneous service of summons- how applied to preliminary attachment and preliminary injunction/ exception : no need to apply when defendant is a non-resident of the Philippines. c.) Preference of levy on attachment duly registered over a prior unregistered sale.

2. Preliminary Injunction A.M. No. 07-7-12 effective December 27, 2007 amendments :   a.) Preliminary Injunction as well as other provisional remedies may now be applied for and included in a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.

b.) Rule 58- the higher Court (RTC, CA, SB, CTA) that issued the preliminary injunction must decide the main case or petition within 6 months from issuance of the writ. The purpose is in order not to unduly delay the main case lodged in the lower court. 

c.) The Judge’s authority to issue a writ of preliminary injunction is limited to his/her territorial jurisdiction (The Regional Trial Court shall exercise original jurisdiction in the issuance of writ of Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus, Quo Warranto, Habeas Corpus and Injunction which may be enforced in any part of their respective regions [Gomos vs. Adiong, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1863, October 22, 2004])

d.) The appellate court’s (Court of Appeals) jurisdiction to grant writ of preliminary injunction is limited to action or proceedings pending before it or in a petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus. But an original action for Injunction is outside the jurisdiction of Court of appeals.

e. Injunction to restrain extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgage on properties located in different provinces : file separate injunction suits for breach of the mortgage contract. Rule against forum-shopping will not be violative since injunction is enforceable only within the territorial limits of the trial court.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS

1. Rule 65- A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, December 27, 2007 amendments : a. Period to file Petition for Certiorari now non-extendible (Laguna Metts Corp. vs. CA, G.R. No. 185220, July 27, 2009).

b.) No longer a remedy against an Order denying a Motion for New Trial or Motion for Reconsideration because an Order denying a Motion for New Trial or Motion for Reconsideration has been removed or deleted from the list of non-appealable orders or resolutions under Sec. 1 of Rule 41 Presently, as against the Order itself denying a Motion for New Trial or Motion for Reconsideration, there is no more remedy. The remedy is to appeal from the judgment.

c.) Petition filed with RTC exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court; the Court of Appeals whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or Sandiganbayan, if in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.

d.) Sec. 7, Rule 65   d.1.) Unless there is a TRO or preliminary injunction issued by a higher court, the main or principal case should proceed despite the filing of a petition for certiorari. d.2.) The public respondent should proceed with the principal case within 10 days from the filing of a petition for certiorari with a higher court or tribunal, albeit a TRO or a preliminary injunction or upon its expiration. Failure to proceed with the principal case may be a ground for an administrative charge.

2. Mandamus Mandamus is employed to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial, as opposed to a discretionary duty. In order that a Writ of Mandamus may issue, it is essential that the petitioner thereof has a clear legal right to the thing demanded and that it is the imperative duty of the respondent to perform the act required.   It is simply a command to execute a power already possessed and to perform a duty already imposed (Jesse and Bema Cachopero vs. Rachel Celestial, G.R. No. 146754, March 21, 2012).

3. Declaratory Relief “brought in the appropriate RTC” (Ortega vs 3. Declaratory Relief “brought in the appropriate RTC” (Ortega vs. The Quezon City Government, et al., G.R. No. 161400, September 2, 2005)

4. Expropriation (Rule 67 vs. RA 8974)   Payment of just compensation : RA 8974 requires that the government make a direct payment to the property owner before the writ may issue. Such payment is based on the current, relevant zonal valuation of the BIR. The plain intent of RA 8974 is to supersede the system of deposit under Rule 67 with the scheme of “immediate payment” in cases involving National Government infrastructure projects (Rep. Gingoyon, G.R. No. 166249, December 19, 2005).

5. Contempt – Rule 71   a.) For indirect contempt under Rule 71, it is required that there be a charge in writing, duly filed in Court, and an opportunity given to the person charged to be heard by himself or counsel. “To be heard” does not only mean verbal arguments in court, but also through pleadings. b.) In the nature of a criminal charge, so conviction cannot be had merely on the basis of written pleadings (Isabelo Esperida, et al. vs. Franco V. Jurado, Jr., G.R. No. 172538, April 25, 2012).

6. Quo Warranto – Rule 66 Actions of Quo Warranto against persons who usurp an office in a corporation, which were formerly cognizable by the SEC under PD 902-A, have been transferred to the courts of general jurisdiction. But this does not change the fact that Rule 66 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure does not apply to Quo Warranto cases against persons who usurp an office in a private corporation (Calleja vs. Panday, G.R. No. 168696, February 28, 2006).