SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS constitutionality of RA 9372 and that private respondents’ petition for

(RULE 62 – RULE 71) declaratory relief was properly filed.

Petitioners moved for reconsideration which was, however, denied by the

38. G.R. No. 204603 September 24, 2013 RTC in an Order dated July 31, 2012. The RTC observed that private
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES respondents have personal and substantial interests in the case and that
Vs. it would be illogical to await the adverse consequences of the aforesaid
HERMINIO HARRY ROQUE, ET.AL. law’s implementation considering that the case is of paramount impact to
the Filipino people.
FACTS: On July 17, 2007, private respondents filed a Petition for
declaratory relief before the RTC, assailing the constitutionality of the ISSUE: WON the requirements for declaratory relief have been satisfied.
following sections of RA 9372: (a) Section 3, for being void for
vagueness; (b) Section 7, for violating the right to privacy of RULING: No.
communication and due process and the privileged nature of priest- The following are the requisites for an action for declaratory relief:
penitent relationships; (c)Section 18, for violating due process, the
prohibition against ex post facto laws or bills of attainder, the Universal First , the subject matter of the controversy must be a deed, will, contract
Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and or other written instrument, statute, executive order or regulation, or
Political Rights, as well as for contradicting Article 125 of the Revised ordinance; Second , the terms of said documents and the validity thereof
Penal Code, as amended; (d) Section 26, for violating the right to are doubtful and require judicial construction; Third , there must have been
travel; and (e) Section 27, for violating the prohibition against no breach of the documents in question; Fourth , there must be an actual
unreasonable searches and seizures. justiciable controversy or the "ripening seeds" of one between persons
whose interests are adverse; Fifth , the issue must be ripe for judicial
Petitioners moved to suspend the proceedings, averring that certain determination; and Sixth , adequate relief is not available through other
petitions (SC petitions) raising the issue of RA 9372’s constitutionality have means or other forms of action or proceeding.
been lodged before the Court. The said motion was granted in an Order
dated October 19, 2007. Based on a judicious review of the records, the Court observes that while
the first, second, and third requirements appear to exist in this case, the
On October 5, 2010, the Court promulgated its Decision in the Southern fourth, fifth, and sixth requirements, however, remain wanting.
Hemisphere cases and thereby dismissed the SC petitions.
As to the fourth requisite, there is serious doubt that an actual justiciable
On February 27, 2012, petitioners filed the subject motion to dismiss, controversy or the "ripening seeds" of one exists in this case.
contending that private respondents failed to satisfy the requisites for
declaratory relief. Likewise, they averred that the constitutionality of RA As to the fifth requisite for an action for declaratory relief, neither can it be
9372 had already been upheld by the Court in the Southern Hemisphere inferred that the controversy at hand is ripe for adjudication since the
cases. possibility of abuse, based on the above-discussed allegations in private
respondents’ petition, remain highly-speculative and merely theorized.
In their Comment/Opposition, private respondents countered that: (a) the
Court did not resolve the issue of RA 9372’s constitutionality in Southern Finally, as regards the sixth requisite, the Court finds it irrelevant to
Hemisphere as the SC petitions were dismissed based purely on technical proceed with a discussion on the availability of adequate reliefs since no
grounds; and (b) the requisites for declaratory relief were met. impending threat or injury to the private respondents exists in the first
place.
On April 23, 2012, the RTC issued an Order which denied the subject
motion to dismiss, finding that the Court did not pass upon the
 39. G.R. No. 181873 November 27, 2013 subject property. Thus BPI filed a supplemental answer with counterclaim,
SPOUSES PIO DATO and SONIA Y. SIA alleging therein that with the expiration of the period of redemption, BPI is
vs. entitled to a writ of possession over foreclosed property and the occupancy
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS of Spouses Sia on the foreclosed property entitles BPI to a reasonable
compensation which is conservatively pegged at ₱10,000.00 per month
FACTS: Petitioners Spouses Pio Dato and Sonia Sia applied for a from the date of the issuance of the certificate of sale in favor of BPI.
₱240,000.00 loan which was granted by the BPI with a term of 6 months ISSUE: WON the extrajudicial foreclosure is proper.
and secured by a real estate mortgage over a parcel of land owned by
Spouses Sia situated in Labangon, Cebu. Subsequently, Spouses Sia RULING: Yes. It is a settled rule of law that foreclosure is proper when the
availed of a ₱4 Million Revolving Promissory Note Line with a term of 1 debtors are in default of the payment of their obligation. As the CA had
year, secured by the same real estate mortgage. appositely considered, due to Spouses Sia’s failure to pay their loans
Before the ₱240,000.00 and ₱4 Million loans matured, Spouses Sia covered by Promissory Notes Nos. 90/98 and 90/152, the extrajudicial
approached BPI through Mona Padilla, account officer of BPI for additional foreclosure of the real estate mortgage is valid and binding against them:
loans. After some discussion with Padilla, Spouses Sia agreed to obtain a Finding for the non-payment of obligations covered by PN Nos. 90/98 and
Credit Facility of ₱5.7 Million using the same collaterals offered in their 90/152, Sps. Sia’s prayer to declare null and void the extrajudicial
previous loans and 4 additional parcels of land. foreclosure of the subject real estate mortgage is now foiled. Therefore,
Spouses Sia obtained ₱800,000.00 from their Credit Facility of ₱5.7 Million the extrajudicial foreclosure and the corresponding certificate of sale
which was credited to their current account with BPI after executing a executed on August 9, 1993 for the subject real estate property covered
Promissory Note for the same amount. While Spouses Sia paid some of by TCT No. 102434 which sought to reach the property and subject it to
the interest on their loans, the amount was insufficient to cover the principal the payment of Sps. Sia’s obligations was valid and binding. SC further
amount of said loans. rule that for failure of Sps. Sia to exercise the right of redemption, the right
Padilla sent a written reminder to Spouses Sia to settle all unpaid to consolidate ownership on the foreclosed property was validly exercised
interest. Yet the spouses failed to pay the same. Their principal loans of by BPI.
₱240,000.00 and ₱4 Million loan also remained unsettled. BPI, through
Padilla and Assistant Vice President, Danilo A. Quinto sent another Prayer for Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction must be denied. The
demand letter to them requesting payment of the outstanding loan. pending suit questioning the validity of the extrajudicial foreclosure of
Spouses Sia still failed to pay the principal amount of ₱4,240,000.00 mortgage does not entitle Spouses Sia to a suspension of the issuance of
exclusive of interest, penalties and other charges. But the amount of writ of possession.
₱800,000.00 from the ₱5.7 Million Credit Facility was paid through a Letter
of Credit. As the ₱240,000.00 and ₱4 Million loans of Spouses Sia were
not yet settled, BPI cancelled the ₱5.7 Million Credit facility. To facilitate
and assist Spouses Sia in paying off their loans, the four lots which secured
the ₱5.7 Million Credit Line Facility were released.
Spouses Sia filed a complaint with the RTC of Cebu City praying for the
issuance TRO to maintain status quo, award of damages and litigation
costs.
Spouses Sia failed to pay notwithstanding the numerous demands made
by BPI, leading to the extrajudicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage
which secured Spouses Sia’s loans of ₱240,000.00 and ₱4 Million. The lot
was sold at a public auction held on August 9, 1993, with BPI as the sole
bidder in the amount of ₱10,060,080.20. The certificate of sale was issued
on August 10, 1993 upon payment of all the required registration fees.
During the pendency of the instant case, the one-year redemption period
had lapsed without Spouses Sia exercising their right to redeem the
 PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
(RULE 57 – RULE 61) The requisites of a valid injunction are the existence of a right and its actual
or threatened violations. Thus, to be entitled to an injunctive writ, the right
40. G.R. No. 188768 January 7, 2013 to be protected and the violation against that right must be shown.
TML GASKET INDUSTRIES, INC.,
vs. Verily, [TML's] failure to comply with the terms and conditions of its credit
BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., agreement with [BPI], as embodied in the [real estate mortgage] and the
promissory notes it issued in favor of the latter, entitles [BPI] to
FACTS: TML obtained a loan from the Bank of Southeast Asia, Inc. (BSA), extrajudicially foreclose the mortgaged properties.
which TML can avail via a credit facility of P85M. As security for the loan,
TML executed a real estate mortgage over commercial and industrial lots The issuance of a preliminary injunction rests entirely within the discretion
-Parañaque City. BSA required TML to execute a promissory note for each of the court taking cognizance of the case and is generally not interfered
availment from the credit facility. with except in cases of manifest abuse. For the issuance of the writ of
preliminary injunction to be proper, it must be shown that the invasion of
From September 1996 to 31 July 1997, TML executed several promissory the right sought to be protected is material and substantial, that the right of
notes (PN). During the period of the loan, BSA changed its corporate name complainant is clear and unmistakable and that there is an urgent and
- merged with BPI. TML defaulted in the payment of its loan so BPI extra- paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. In the
judicially foreclosed the mortgaged properties. TML's indebtedness to BPI absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of a writ of injunction constitutes
ballooned. The Sheriff of RTC issued a Notice of Extra-judicial Foreclosure grave abuse of discretion.
Sale. TML filed a "Complaint for Declaratory Relief, Plus Damages, with
Prayer for the Issuance of (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction" Clearly, the possibility of irreparable damage without proof of actual
against BPI. existing right is no ground for an injunction. Once again, our holding
in Selegna is relevant and sound: x x x Injunction is not designed to protect
The trial court denied TML's application for the issuance of a preliminary contingent or future rights. It is not proper when the complainant's right is
injunction as the testimony of [TML] casts [doubt] on its right over the doubtful or disputed. x x x x
property. Furthermore, [TML] has in its favor the right of redemption. On
M/R, the trial court ordered the issuance of the writ in favor of TML, subject Petitioners do not have any clear right to be protected. As shown in our
to the posting of a bond in the amount of P300,000.00. earlier findings, they failed to substantiate their allegations that their right
to due process had been violated and the maturity of their obligation
BPI filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before CA seeking to annul forestalled. Since they indisputably failed to meet their obligations in spite
and set aside the twin Orders of the trial court. The appellate court found of repeated demands, we hold that there is no legal justification to enjoin
grave abuse of discretion in the trial court's issuance of the orders. TML respondent from enforcing its undeniable right to foreclose the mortgaged
filed an M/R which was denied by CA. Hence, this petition for review properties. In any case, petitioners will not be deprived outrightly of their
on certiorari property. Pursuant to Section 47 of the General Banking Law of 2000,
mortgagors who have judicially or extrajudicially sold their real property for
ISSUE: W/N the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction is proper? the full or partial payment of their obligation have the right to redeem the
property within one year after the sale. They can redeem their real estate
HELD: NO by paying the amount due, with interest rate specified, under the mortgage
We subscribe to the appellate court's ruling. deed; as well as all the costs and expenses incurred by the bank. The
Petition is DENIED.
(1) Section 3, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court lists the grounds for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. x x x As such, a writ of
preliminary injunction may be issued only upon clear showing of an actual
existing right to be protected during the pendency of the principal action.
 41. G.R. No. 185595 January 9, 2013 are therefore interlocutory. They did not finally dispose of the case nor did
MA. CARMINIA C. CALDERON represented by her Attorney-In-Fact, they consist of a final adjudication of the merits of petitioner’s claims as to
Marycris V. Baldevia the ground of psychological incapacity and other incidents as child
vs. custody, support and conjugal assets.
JOSE ANTONIO F. ROXAS and COURT OF APPEALS
Moreover, private respondent’s obligation to give monthly support in the
FACTS: amount fixed by the RTC in the assailed orders may be enforced by the
Petitioner Ma. Carminia C. Calderon and private respondent Jose Antonio court itself, as what transpired in the early stage of the proceedings when
F. Roxas, were married on December 4, 1985 and their union produced the court cited the private respondent in contempt of court and ordered him
four children. On January 16, 1998, petitioner filed a complaint for the arrested for his refusal/failure to comply with the order granting support
declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground of psychological pendente lite. A few years later, private respondent filed a motion to reduce
incapacity. support while petitioner filed her own motion to increase the same, and in
addition sought spousal support and support in arrears. This fact
While the action was pending, the trial court granted Calderon’s request underscores the provisional character of the order granting support
for support pendent lite (while the action for nullity is pending). pendente lite.

On May 16, 2005, the trial court rendered its decision declaring the Petitioner’s theory that the assailed orders have ceased to be provisional
marriage null and void, awarding custody of the children to the mother and due to the arrearages incurred by private respondent is therefore
ordering Roxas to provide support to the children. Several actions were untenable.
raised in court, with Roxas asking for a decrease of the monthly support
while Calderon asking for an increase in the amount and Roxas’ payment The remedy against an interlocutory order not subject of an appeal is an
on his arrears for support. appropriate special civil action under Rule 65 provided that the
interlocutory order is rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or with
ISSUE: grave abuse of discretion. Having chosen the wrong remedy in questioning
Whether or not the orders on the matter of support pendent lite are the subject interlocutory orders of the RTC, petitioner’s appeal was
interlocutory or final. correctly dismissed by the CA.

HELD:
A “final” judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a case, leaving
nothing more to be done by the Court in respect thereto. Conversely, an
order that does not finally dispose of the case, and does not end the Court’s
task of adjudicating the parties’ contentions and determining their rights
and liabilities as regards each other, but obviously indicates that other
things remain to be done by the Court, is “interlocutory”.

Unlike a “final” judgment or order, which is appealable, as above pointed

out, an “interlocutory” order may not be questioned on appeal except only
as part of an appeal that may eventually be taken from the final judgment
rendered in the case.

The assailed orders relative to the incident of support pendente lite and
support in arrears, as the term suggests, were issued pending the rendition
of the decision on the main action for declaration of nullity of marriage, and
 42. A.M. OCA IPI No. 12-201-CA-J FEBRUARY 19, 2013 RULING: NO. A person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation,
ETHELWOLDO E. FERNANDEZ, ANTONIO A. HENSON and ANGEL or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is
S. ONG so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition
vs. of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof may, with
COURT OF APPEALS ASSOCIATE JUSTICES RAMON M. BATO, JR., leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action.—Section 1 of Rule 19
ISAIAS P. DICDICAN and EDUARDO B. PERALTA, JR. of the Rules of Court provides that a person who has a legal interest in the
matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest
FACTS: Complainants Ethelwoldo Fernandez, and Antonio Henson were against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution
elected to the board of directors of NADECOR. In a regular stockholder’s or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer
meeting where two groups were vying for control over the company, thereof may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action.
Calalang, De Jesus, Romulo, Ayala, Lazatin, Fernandez, Nitorreda, Engle
were Elected. Gatmaitan was also elected as Corporate Secretary. Conversely, a person who is not a party in the main suit cannot be bound
Thereafter, Ricafort/s, claiming to be stockholders of record, sought to by an ancillary writ, such as a preliminary injunction. Indeed, he cannot be
annul the said meeting held. They filed a complaint before the RTC of affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger.
PASIG. Ricafort/s alleged that they were not given due notice of the said
meeting thus they were not present and were not able to exercise their Moreover, a person not an aggrieved party in the original proceedings that
right. RTC agreed with the Ricaforts. gave rise to the petition for certiorari, will not be permitted to bring the said
action to annul or stay the injurious writ. Such is the clear import of Sections
Four separate Petition for Certiorari were filed by the members of the board 1 and 2 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Thus, a person not a party to the
with the CA, all with application for a TRO and/or preliminary injunction. proceedings in the trial court or in the CA cannot maintain an action for
The CA denied such applications, but on the same day nevertheless, the certiorari in the Supreme Court to have the judgment reviewed. Stated
11th division issued a TRO. During the effectivity of the TRO, the old Board differently, if a petition for certiorari or prohibition is filed by one who was
of Directors assumed the functions of the new one in order to prevent any not a party in the lower court, he has no standing to question the assailed
hiatus and not to prejudice the corporation. All the CA petitions were order.
consolidated as well as the other cases.
The complainants, who at various times served as elected members of the
On February 17, 2012, the respondents Ricafort filed their Comment Ad Board of NADECOR, did not bother to intervene in the CA petitions, hence,
Cautelam to the petition in CA-G.R. No. 122784. The petitioners therein they are not entitled to the service of pleadings and motions therein.
thereafter filed (3) urgent motions to resolve their application for writ of Complainant Fernandez was himself a defendant in SEC Case No. 11-164
preliminary injunction, on March 8, on May 22, and again on June 6, 2012. in the RTC, but he chose not to join any of the four CA petitions.
The Writ of Preliminary Injunction was granted by the CA 14th Division,
which not for long was questioned. Having established that the herein complainants have no personality to
assail the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the CA’s former Special
Complainants filed with the Supreme Court a Petition for Certiorari and 14th Division, we cannot now permit them to harass the CA Justices who
Prohibition, seeking to annul the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the issued the same. For even granting that the issuance of the writ was
CA’s Special 14th Division. Complainants also filed an Administrative case erroneous, as a matter of public policy a magistrate cannot be held
against the Justices of the 14th Division of the CA. Alleged in this administratively liable for every discretionary but erroneous order he
administrative complaint that the respondent Justices are guilty of grave issues. The settled rule is that “a Judge cannot be held to account civilly,
misconduct, conduct detrimental to the service, gross ignorance of the law, criminally or administratively for an erroneous decision rendered by him in
gross incompetence, and manifest partiality. good faith.

ISSUE: Whether the Ricaforts have a legal personality to assail the writ of
preliminary injunction issued by the CA 14th Division.
 43. G.R. No. 179267 June 25, 2013 statute is alleged to be unconstitutional or invalid, does not of itself entitle
JESUS C. GARCIA a litigant to have the same enjoined.
vs.
THE HONORABLE RAY ALAN T. DRILON, Presiding Judge, Regional In Younger v. Harris, Jr., 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), the Supreme Court of the
Trial Court-Branch 41, Bacolod City, and ROSALIE JAYPE-GARCIA, United States declared, thus: Federal injunctions against state criminal
for herself and in behalf of minor children, namely: JO-ANN, statutes, either in their entirety or with respect to their separate and distinct
JOSEPH EDUARD, JESSE ANTHONE, all surnamed GARCIA prohibitions, are not to be granted as a matter of course, even if such
statutes are unconstitutional. No citizen or member of the community is
FACTS: Private respondent Rosalie filed a petition before the RTC of immune from prosecution, in good faith, for his alleged criminal acts. The
Bacolod City a Temporary Protection Order against her husband, Jesus, imminence of such a prosecution even though alleged to be unauthorized
pursuant to R.A. 9262. She claimed to be a victim of physical, emotional, and, hence, unlawful is not alone ground for relief in equity which exerts its
psychological and economic violence, being threatened of deprivation of extraordinary powers only to prevent irreparable injury to the plaintiff who
custody of her children and of financial support and also a victim of marital seeks its aid.
infidelity on the part of petitioner.
The TPO was granted but the petitioner failed to faithfully comply with the The sole objective of injunctions is to preserve the status quo until the trial
conditions set forth by the said TPO, private-respondent filed another court hears fully the merits of the case. It bears stressing, however, that
application for the issuance of a TPO ex parte. The trial court issued a protection orders are granted ex parte so as to protect women and their
modified TPO and extended the same when petitioner failed to comment children from acts of violence. To issue an injunction against such orders
on why the TPO should not be modified. After the given time allowance to will defeat the very purpose of the law against VAWC.
answer, the petitioner no longer submitted the required comment as it
would be an “exercise in futility.”
Petitioner filed before the CA a petition for prohibition with prayer for
injunction and TRO on, questioning the constitutionality of the RA 9262 for
violating the due process and equal protection clauses, and the validity of
the modified TPO for being “an unwanted product of an invalid law.”
The CA issued a TRO on the enforcement of the TPO but however, denied
the petition for failure to raise the issue of constitutionality in his pleadings
before the trial court and the petition for prohibition to annul protection
orders issued by the trial court constituted collateral attack on said law.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. Thus, this
petition is filed.

ISSUE: WON the 60-day TRO issued by the appellate court in this case
against the enforcement of the TPO is proper.

RULING: No. It bears stressing that protection orders are granted ex parte
so as to protect women and their children from acts of violence. To issue
an injunction against such orders will defeat the very purpose of the law
against Violence Against Women and Children.—As the rules stand, a
review of the case by appeal or certiorari before judgment is prohibited.
Moreover, if the appeal of a judgment granting permanent protection shall
not stay its enforcement, with more reason that a TPO, which is valid only
for thirty (30) days at a time, should not be enjoined. The mere fact that a