go vs clerk_Civil Procedure

8/17/2019 go vs clerk_Civil Procedure

1/5

G.R. No. 154623 March 13, 2009

JIMMY T. GO, Petitioner,

vs.

THE CLERK OF CORT !N" E#$OFFICIO

%RO&INCI!L 'HERIFF OF NEGRO'

OCCI"ENT!L, IL"EFON'O M. &ILL!NE&!,

JR., a() 'HERIFF "IO'CORO F. C!%ON%ON,

JR. a() MLTI$LCKCOR%OR!TION,Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

LEON!R"O$"E C!'TRO, J.:

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari

assailing the Decision dated !pril "#, $##$ and

Resolution$ dated %ul& ", $##$, of the Court of

!ppeals 'C!( in C!)*.R. SP No. +-", which

reversed and set aside the Nove/er $", $###

and Dece/er -, $### Orders of the Regional

0rial Court 'R0C( of Pasig Cit&, Branch $++ which

in turn, granted petitioner1s otion for issuance

of a writ of preliinar& in2unction and denied

respondents1 otion to disiss, respectivel&.

0he present controvers& steed fro the

e3ecution of the Decision of R0C, Bacolod Cit&,

Branch 4 in a coplaint for collection of a su

of one&" doc5eted as Civil Case No. 67)##.

!s culled fro the C! decision and fro the

pleadings 8led /& the parties in the present case,the factual and procedural antecedents are as

follows9

On !ugust #, 667, respondent :ulti);uc5

Corporation ':ulti);uc5( 8led a collection suit

against !l/erto 0. ;oo&u5o ';oo&u5o( as sole

proprietor of Noah1s !r5 :erchandising Inc.

'N!:I(. 0he coplaint pertained to three '"(

dishonored


2/5

:ulti);uc5 elevated the case to the C! via a

petition for certiorari and prohi/ition with pra&er

for the issuance of restraining order and=or

in2unction.

!s previousl& stated herein, in the

Decision dated !pril "#, $##$, the C! granted

:ulti);uc51s petition and reversed the ruling of

the Pasig R0C. 0he C! ruled that the Nove/er$", $### Order issued /& the Pasig R0C interfered

with the order of the Bacolod R0C, which is a co)

eual and coordinate court. 0he C! held that the

Pasig R0C gravel& a/used its discretion when it

granted the in2unctive relief pra&ed for /&

petitioner despite the glaring lac5 of a clear legal

right on the part of the latter to support his cause

of action. Petitioner 8led a otion for

reconsideration /ut the C! denied the sae in its

euall& challenged Resolution dated %ul& ",

$##$.

>ence, this present petition for review on

certiorari.

Petitioner theories that since he was a ?stranger?

to Civil Case No. 67)##, he should /e

considered a ?third part& claiant? pursuant to

Rule "6, Section + of the Rules of

Court.4 Corollaril&, whatever 2udgent or

decision rendered in the Civil Case No. 67)##

did not /ind hi or his properties. Petitioner adds

that as a co)owner of all properties and onies/elonging to ;oo&u5o=N!:I, he was undul&

pre2udiced /& the Decision in Civil Case No. 67)

##. Petitioner insists that he should have /een

ipleaded in Civil Case No. 67)## so that

there could /e a 8nal deterination of the action

as to hi. >e argues that the principle on ?non)

intervention of co)eual courts? does not appl&

where, as here, a third part& claiant is involved.

e are not persuaded.

e have tie and again reiterated the doctrine

that no court has the power to interfere /&

in2unction with the 2udgents or orders of

another court of concurrent 2urisdiction having

the power to grant the relief sought /&

in2unction.+ 0his doctrine of non)interference is

preised on the principle that a 2udgent of a

court of copetent 2urisdiction a& not /e

opened, odi8ed or vacated /& an& court of

concurrent 2urisdiction.- !s correctl& ratiocinated

/& the C!, cases wherein an e3ecution order has

/een issued, are still pending, so that all the

proceedings on the e3ecution are still

proceedings in the suit.7 Since the Bacolod R0C

had alread& acuired 2urisdiction over the

collection suit 'Civil Case No. 67)##( and

rendered 2udgent in relation thereto, it retained

2urisdiction to the e3clusion of all other coordinate

courts over its 2udgent, including all incidentsrelative to the control and conduct of its

inisterial oFcers, nael& pu/lic respondent

sheri@s. 0hus, the issuance /& the Pasig R0C of

the writ of preliinar& in2unction in Civil Case No.

+7$4 was a clear act of interference with the

2udgent of Bacolod R0C in Civil Case No. 67)

##.

0he 2urisprudential ?e3ception? adverted to /&

petitioner, i.e. Santos v. Ba&hon, 66 SCR! 4$4

'66(, 8nds no application in this case. In

Santos, we allowed the ipleentation of a writ

of e3ecution issued /& the ;a/or !r/iter to /e

en2oined /& order of the R0C where a third part&

claiant had 8led his action to recover propert&

involved in the e3ecution sale, since the ;a/or

!r/iter had no 2urisdiction to decide atters of

ownership of propert& and the civil courts are the

proper venue therefor. In the case at /ar, the

Bacolod R0C had 2urisdiction and copetence to

resolve the uestion of ownership of the propert&

involved had petitioner 8led his clai with the

said court.

0o reiterate, a case, in which an e3ecution order

has /een issued, is still pending, so that all

proceedings on the e3ecution are still

proceedings in the suit.6 >ence, an& uestions

that a& /e raised regarding the su/2ect atter

of Civil Case No. 67)## or the e3ecution of the

decision in said case is properl& threshed out /&

the Bacolod R0C.

!s to petitioner1s arguent that he was undul&

pre2udiced /& the Decision in Civil Case No. 67)

## as a co)owner of all properties and onies

/elonging to ;oo&u5o=N!:I, the Court 8nds the

sae to /e without /asis.

Section ", Rule 47 of the Rules of Court

enuerates the grounds for the issuance of a

preliinar& in2unction9

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_154623_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_154623_2009.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_154623_2009.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_154623_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_154623_2009.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_154623_2009.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_154623_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_154623_2009.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_154623_2009.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_154623_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_154623_2009.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_154623_2009.html#fnt19


3/5

SEC. ". Grounds for issuance of preliminary

injunction. G ! preliinar& in2unction a& /e

granted when it is esta/lished9

'a( 0hat the applicant is entitled to the

relief deanded, and the whole or part of

such relief consists in restraining the

coission or continuance of the act or

acts coplained of, or in reuiring theperforance of an act or acts, either for a

liited period or perpetuall&H

'/( 0hat the coission, continuance, or

non)perforance of the act or acts

coplained of during the litigation would

pro/a/l& wor5 in2ustice to the applicantH or

'c( 0hat a part&, court, agenc& or a person

is doing, threatening, or is attepting to

do, or is procuring or su@ering to /e done,

soe act or acts pro/a/l& in violation of

the rights of the applicant respecting the

su/2ect of the action or proceeding, and

tending to render the 2udgent

ine@ectual.

Pursuant to the a/ove provision, a clear and

positive right especiall& calling for 2udicial

protection ust /e shown. In2unction is not a

reed& to protect or enforce contingent,

a/stract, or future rightsH it will not issue to

protect a right not in esse and which a& neverarise, or to restrain an act which does not give

rise to a cause of action. 0here ust e3ist an

actual right.$# 0here ust /e a patent showing /&

the coplaint that there e3ists a right to /e

protected and that the acts against which the writ

is to /e directed are violative of said right.$

0he purpose of a preliinar& in2unction is to

prevent threatened or continuous irreedia/le

in2ur& to soe of the parties /efore their clais

can /e thoroughl& studied and ad2udicated. 0hus,to /e entitled to an in2unctive writ, the petitioner

has the /urden to esta/lish the following

reuisites9

'( a right in esse or a clear and

unista5a/le right to /e protectedH

'$( a violation of that rightH

'"( that there is an urgent and peranent

act and urgent necessit& for the writ to

prevent serious daage.$$

0o /olster his clai of interest on the attached

properties, petitioner presented the !greeent

dated e/ruar& 6, 67$,$" which provides in part9

$. 0hat while on record theaforeentioned /usiness ventures

'copanies( are registered in the nae of

the IRS0 P!R0, the founder and who

initiall& provided the necessar& capital for

the ver& 8rst /usiness venture which the&

have esta/lished, the anageent

e3pertise and actual operation thereof are

provided /& the SECOND P!R0 who /&

utual consent and agreeent /& the

parties theselves, is entitled to J or 4#K

of the /usiness, goodwill, pro8ts, real and

personal properties owned /& the

copanies now e3isting as well as those

that will /e organied in the future, /an5

deposits, 'savings and current( one&

ar5et placeents, stoc5s, tie deposits

inventories and such other properties of

various fors and 5inds. It is, however,

clearl& and e3plicitl& understood that the

foregoing do not include the individual

properties of the parties.

". 0hat for oFcial record purposes and forconvenience, the aforesaid /usiness

ventures will reain registered in the

nae of the IRS0 P!R0 until the parties

decide otherwise.

Petitioner further claied that the e/ruar& 6,

67$ !greeent was copliented /& another

!greeent dated Octo/er #, 67+,$ vi9

>ERE!S, the a/ove)naed parties, have

euall& pooled their talents, e3pertise and8nancial resources in foring NO!>1S !RL

:ERC>!NDISIN*, which includes, aong others G

) NoahMs !r5 International

) Noah1s Sugar Carriers

) Noah1s !r5 Sugar 0ruc5ers

) Noah1s !r5 Sugar Repac5ers

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_154623_2009.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_154623_2009.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_154623_2009.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_154623_2009.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_154623_2009.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_154623_2009.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_154623_2009.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_154623_2009.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_154623_2009.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_154623_2009.html#fnt24


4/5

) Noah1s !r5 Sugar Insurers

) Noah1s !r5 Sugar 0erinal

) Noah1s !r5 Sugar Building 'including the

land on which the /uilding stands(

) Noah1s !r5 Sugar Re8ner& 'including the

plant=/uildings=achiner& situated in thecopound including the land on which the

re8ner& is situated(

and which /usiness enterprise are otherwise

collectivel& 5nown as the NO!>1S !RL *RO

ERE!S, the a/ove)enuerated /usiness 8rs

are all registered in the nae of !;BER0O 0.

;OOEREORE, and in consideration of the

a/ove preises, the parties here/& agree as

follows9

. 0hat the pro8ts and losses of an& of the

a/ove 8rs shall /e euall& apportioned

/etween the two partiesH

$. In case of the dissolution of an& of the

a/ove 8rs, or in the event of destruction

of sic loss of an& propert& of the a/ove

8r, all the assets thereof, including the

insurance proceeds in the event of

total=partial destruction shall li5ewise /e

divided E

333 333

>owever, the Court notes that the authenticit&

and the due e3ecution of these docuents are

presentl& under litigation in other proceedingswhich are not pending /efore the Pasig R0C.

0here appears to /e a pending case, wherein

;oo&u5o clais that his signatures on these

!greeents were a forger&.$4

:oreover, as correctl& o/served /& the C!, N!:I

had alread& /een in e3istence as earl& as the

iddle part of the 6-#1s. It is undenia/le that for

a little ore than two '$( decades pending the

advent of the present controvers&, N!:I has /een

doing /usiness as a registered single

proprietorship with ;oo&u5o as single proprietor.

On this score, we uote the following discussion

of the C!9

!t this 2uncture, this Court notes that even

assuing the validit& of the foregoing partnership

agreeents, for all legal intents and purposes

and in ters of /inding e@ect against thirdpersons, the Noah1s !r5 :erchandising is a

registered single proprietorship. Corollaril&, third

persons dealing with the said /usiness, including

:ulti);uc5, had the right to rel& on the fact that

the registered single proprietor thereof, in the

person of !l/erto ;oo&u5o, a& /e held

personall& lia/le for an& and all lia/ilities of the

single proprietorship and vice)versa. :oreover,

this Court 8nds it ver& unli5el& that for ore than

twent&)&ears of the e3istence of the /usiness,

and considering Private Respondent1s purported

personal interest in the /usiness, he would ris5

allowing third persons to deal with and

conseuentl& have the /usiness lia/le as a single

proprietorship when Private Respondent,

assuing a valid partnership indeed e3isted,

could have easil& copelled !l/erto ;oo&u5o to

cause the registration of the /usiness as a

partnership to a@ord legitiate protection to

Private Respondent1s propert& interests therein as

a partner thereof. In an& event, Private

Respondent is now estopped fro disavowing the

standing of Noah1s !r5 :erchandising as aregistered single proprietorship and fro claiing

that the properties in uestion /elong to a

purported partnership. 333 333 333

Proceeding fro the foregoing disuisition, it was

proper for :ulti);uc5 to have not ipleaded

Private Respondent in Civil Case No. 67)##

considering that onl& !l/erto ;oo&u5o was /eing

ade lia/le /eing the single proprietor of Noah1s

!r5 :erchandising. Corollaril&, there can /e no

uestion on the propriet& of Petitioners)Sheri@s

authorit& to sell at pu/lic auction the su/2ect

properties which were owned /& and registered in

the nae of Noah1s !r5 :erchandising and=or

!l/erto ;oo&u5o which, therefore, negates the

e3istence of a clear right in favor of Private

Respondent which would erit the protection of

the courts through the writ of preliinar&

in2unction. Respondent Court, therefore, gravel&

a/used its discretion in granting Private

Respondent the in2unctive relief sought for in the

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_154623_2009.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_154623_2009.html#fnt25


5/5

face of overwheling evidence of lac5 of a clear

legal right on the part of Private Respondent to

support its cause of action. %urisprudentiall&

settled is the rule that9

It is alwa&s a ground for den&ing in2unction that

the part& see5ing it has insuFcient title or

interest to sustain it, and no clai to the ultiate

relief sought G in other words, that he shows noeuit&. ant of euit& on the part of the plainti@

in attepting to use the in2unctive process of the

court to enforce a ere /arren right will 2ustif&

the court in refusing the relief even though the

defendant has little euit& on his side. 0he

coplainant1s right or title, oreover, ust /e

clear and unuestioned, for euit&, as a rule, will

not ta5e cogniance of suits to esta/lish title, and

will not lend its preventive aid /& in2unction

where the coplainant1s title or right is dou/tful

or disputed. >e ust stand on the strength of his

own right or title, rather than on the wea5ness of

that claied /& his adversar&. '>eirs of %oauin

!suncion versus :argarito *ervacio, %r., *.R. No.

4-, :arch 6, 666, "# SCR! "$$, ""#.(

!t /est, Private Respondent a& 8le the proper

action to enforce his rights, as against !l/erto

;oo&u5o, in the purported partnership. 0he

institution of the instant in2unction suit, however,

is de8nitel& not the proper foru.

0he attached real properties are registered solel&in the nae of ;oo&u5o and N!:I. Corollaril&,

petitioner had no standing to uestion the

Bacolod R0C1s 2udgent as he is a stranger to

Civil Case No. 67)## and he has no clear right

or interest in the attached propert&. ;i5ewise, the

stoc5 certi8cate is registered in the nae of

N!:I. :oreover, the chec5s su/2ect of Civil Case

No. 67)## were ade in pa&ent for

o/ligations incurred /& ;oo&u5o in the course of

the /usiness operation of N!:I. Even assuing

for the sa5e of arguent that indeed, petitioner

co)owns N!:I, whatever o/ligation the /usiness

incurred in the course of its operation is an

o/ligation of petitioner as a part owner. In e@ect,

petitioner was erel& forestalling the

ipleentation of a 8nal 2udgent against the

corporation which he purportedl& co)owns.

On the issue of estoppel, the C! ruled that

petitioner was estopped fro claiing that he is

a co)owner of the su/2ect properties. Petitioner

would argue that on %une +, 667, he had caused

the annotation of an ?!Fdavit of !dverse

Clai?$+ over the attached real propert& covered

/& 0C0 No. $+46. !ccording to hi, in so doing,

the whole world, including respondents, was

infored of his /eing a co)owner thereof.>owever, the annotation of petitioner1s adverse

clai is not notice to third parties dealing with

the propert& that he is in fact a co)owner, onl&

that he clais to /e a co)owner and intends to

8le the appropriate action to con8r his right as

such. EREORE, the petition is here/& DENIED. 0he

assailed Decision dated !pril "#, $##$, and

Resolution dated %ul& ", $##$ of the Court of

!ppeals in C!)*.R. SP No. +-" are !IR:ED.

Cost against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_154623_2009.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_154623_2009.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_154623_2009.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_154623_2009.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_154623_2009.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_154623_2009.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_154623_2009.html#fnt28

go vs clerk_Civil Procedure

Documents

Transcript of go vs clerk_Civil Procedure