No. L-39861. March 17, 1986.

Main Topic – Rule 65.

FACTS

Silverio filed a case for the recovery of the amount he entrusted to Mendoza, in connection with a proposed purchase of a Forbes Park realty. The trial court rendered its decision in favor of Silverio and subsequently denied the motion for reconsideration instituted by Mendoza. Aggrieved, Mendoza initiated certiorari proceedings in the Court of Appeals seeking the annulment of the order of the trial court and the issuance of preliminary injunction against the petitioners. The Court of Appeals dismissed Mendoza’s certiorari petition and granted Silverio’s motion for execution for payment of the principal, legal interest and attorney’s fees.  Mendoza filed for a certiorari petition questioning the authority of the court a quo to grant and order the partial execution of a judgment that had not yet acquired finality. Silverio filed a motion to dismiss Mendoza’s appeal with Court of Appeals on the ground that the said appeal rendered moot and academic or barred by the dismissal of the petition for certiorari. Mendoza asserted that the appellate court’s dismissal of his certiorari petition constituted no bar to his appeal, for the decision decreeing the said dismissal resolved not the merits of the controversy subject of the order a quo dated July 17, 1973 but the issue as to the jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion of the said court a quo in rendering the said order.

G.R. No. 68619. March 16, 1989.

Main Topic – Rule 65.

FACTS

Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice and moral damages against Shellwood Industries (SHELWOOD). It appears that SHELLWOOD entered into a compromise agreement with the petitioners and agreed to give financial assistance amounting to P20,000.00 in lieu of union’s withdrawal of a case. SHELWOOD instead of paying the petitioners, terminated their service. The labor arbiter ordered the company to reinstate the petitioners and extend financial assistance equivalent to six (6) months of their respective salaries. On appeal to the NLRC, affirmed the judgment but deleted the award of financial assistance. The deletion is based on the ground that the company did not act in bad faith in terminating the petitioners since it merely complied with the request of the certified union for the dismissal of employees expelled from the union pursuant to the union security clause in the Collective Bargaining Agreement

G.R. No. 64220. March 31, 1992.

Main Topic – Rule 58.

FACTS

Searth borrowed from Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) amounting to P370,000 to finance its tomato plantation in La Union. In 1974, Searth failed to pay its agricultural loan which resulted to the foreclosure of the real estate and chattel mortgage executed. Title to the foreclosed properties were thereafter consolidated in the name of DBP. In 1980, DBP advertised to sell some of its acquired assets, including the subject residential properties previously owned by petitioners Camacho, Castro and Taroja. Petitioners filed for annulment of real estate mortgages and foreclosure sale and the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the sale of the residential properties.

The Trial Court issued an order restraining the bidding of the individual properties of the petitioners. After the expiration of the restraining order the petitioners moved for its extension.

No L-30070. August 29 1980.

Main Topic – Rule 58

FACTS

Frederico Decano was temporarily appointed to the position of janitor in the Motor Vehicles Office  in Dagupan City by Undersecretary of Public Works and Communications. The appointment was approved by the Commissioner of Civil Service and Decano served therein for almost four years. In 1966, C. Posadas, as Acting Registrar – Land Transportation Commission (LTC) – Dagupan City , received a telegram from R. Edu, as Acting Commissioner of Land Transportation Commission (LTC), terminating Decano’s services effective as of the close of business on that day.

  Decano filed a petition for “Mandamus and Injunction” with the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, claiming that the officials of the LTC acted without power and in excess of authority in removing him from the service. He prayed for the annulment of the dismissal order issued. The Court granted the writ of preliminary injunction and ordered the respondents to “to desist and refrain from disturbing, molesting or otherwise ousting the petitioner from his position as janitor and to pay Decano his corresponding salary from the date of notice of said preliminary injunction, until further orders from the Court.