No. L-56378. June 22, 1984

Main Topic – Rule 67.

FACTS

NPC instituted proceedings for eminent domain against the spouses Sadang purpose of constructing an access road to its Angat River Hydroelectric Project.

No. L-28184. September 11, 1980

Main Topic – Rule 65.

FACTS

Garcia filed with the Civil Service Commission, a protest against the appointment of the Perez on the ground that she was next in rank better qualified and entitled to preferential appointment to the position of Senior Clerk. The CSC approved the appointment of Perez.  Garcia then filed a petition for quo warranto with Court of First Instance of Manila, questioning the authority of Perez. to occupy and discharge the duties of the position of Senior Clerk in the Fiscal Management and Budget Division. The court a quo dismissed the complaint on the ground that the petitioner does not claim to be entitled to the position but she merely asserted a ‘preferential right’ to be appointed thereto. Under the situation, the petitioner has no cause of action against the respondent. 

No. L-51626. April 30, 1980.

Main Topic – Rule 65.

FACTS

Turqueza instituted an action for recovery of damages on the ground of injury sustained involving a Ford pick-up vehicle belonging to the CDCP Mining and a Willy’s passenger jeep owned and operated by M. Pacapac.  No one appeared during the pre-trial despite due notice to both the private respondent and its counsel. On motion of petitioners, respondent judge declared respondent in default and petitioners were allowed to submit their evidence. The trial court rendered Pacapac in default and ordered her to pay for moral and compensatory damages. No appeal was taken and the judgment became final and executory.

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.