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
8/17/2019 go vs clerk_Civil Procedure
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
8/17/2019 go vs clerk_Civil Procedure
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
8/17/2019 go vs clerk_Civil Procedure
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
8/17/2019 go vs clerk_Civil Procedure
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#fnt28Top Related