THE WRIT OF INJUNCTION ––SHOULD NEVER ISSUE WHEN AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES WOULD ADEQUATELY COMPENSATE THE INJURIES CAUSED.

Since any damage petitioner may suffer is easily subject to mathematical computation and, if proven, is fully compensable by damages, a preliminary injunction is not warranted. (POWER SITES AND SIGNS, INC. vs. UNITED NEON, G.R. No. 163406, November 24, 2009, Second Division, Del Castillo, J.). 

NOTICE OF APPEAL IS THE PROPER MODE OF APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE RTC IN A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65:

Since the decision of the RTC in the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was rendered in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, appeal from the said RTC decision to the Court of Appeals should have been made by filing a notice of appeal, not a petition for review under Rule 42. (BF CITILAND CORPORATION vs. MARILYN B. OTAKE, G.R. No. 173351, July 29, 2010, CARPIO, J.).

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CERTIORARI REMEDIES UNDER RULES 45 AND RULE 65 OF THE RULES OF COURT

In Mercado v. Court of Appeals, 484 Phil. 438 (2004), the Supreme  Court had again stressed the difference of the remedies provided for under Rule 45 and Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, to wit: x x x [T]he proper remedy of the party aggrieved by a decision of the Court of Appeals is a petition for review under Rule 45, which is not identical with a petition for review under Rule 65.  

Under Rule 45, decisions, final orders or resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed to SC by filing a petition for review, which would be but a continuation of the appellate process over the original case. On the other hand, a special civil action under Rule 65 is an independent action based on the specific ground therein provided and, as a general rule, cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, including that to be taken under Rule 45.”  

Relative thereto, one of the requisites of certiorari is that there be no available appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy. Where an appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground therefore is grave abuse of discretion (ARTISTICA CERAMICA, INC. vs. CIUDAD DEL CARMEN HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC., G.R. Nos. 167583-84, June 16, 2010, PERALTA, J.).

EJECTMENT SUIT CANNOT BE ABATED OR SUSPENDED BY THE MERE FILING OF ANOTHER ACTION RAISING OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY AS AN ISSUE.

Only in rare instances is suspension allowed to await the outcome of a pending civil action. In Vda. de Legaspi v. Avendaño (G.R. No. L-40437, September 27, 1977, 79 SCRA 135) and Amagan v. Marayag, (383 Phil. 486, 489 {2000}), the Supreme Court ordered the suspension of the ejectment proceedings on considerations of equity. It explained that the ejectment of petitioners therein would mean a demolition of their house and would create confusion, disturbance, inconvenience, and expense. Needlessly, the court would be wasting much time and effort by proceeding to a stage wherein the outcome would at best be temporary but the result of enforcement would be permanent, unjust and probably irreparable. (SAMONTE vs. CENTURY SAVINGS BANK, G.R. No. 176413, November 25, 2009, Third Division, Nachura, J.). 

IN PROBATE PROCEEDINGS, THE COURT’S AREA OF INQUIRY IS LIMITED TO AN EXAMINATION AND RESOLUTION OF THE EXTRINSIC VALIDITY OF THE WILL.

The rule, however, is not inflexible and absolute. When practical considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon, even before it is probated, the court should meet the issue head on. In this case, a devise given by a married man to his concubine is declared void even if the will was not yet probated. (NEPOMUCENO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. L-62952, October 9, 1985). 

VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCHES:

The following are the well-recognized instances where searches and seizures are allowed even without a valid warrant: (1) Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest: (2) [Seizure] of evidence in "plain view." The elements are: a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to be where they are; c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further search; (3) Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government, the vehicle’s inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity; (4) Consented warrantless search; (5) Customs search; (6) Stop and Frisk; (7) Exigent and emergency circumstances; (8) Search of vessels and aircraft; [and] (9) Inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitary and building regulations.  x x x  

In the exceptional instances where a warrant is not necessary to effect a valid search or seizure, what constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or seizure is purely a judicial question, determinable from the uniqueness of the circumstances involved, including the purpose of the search or seizure, the presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which the search and seizure was made, the place or thing searched, and the character of the articles procured (VALEROSO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 164815, September 3, 2009, 3rd Div, Nachura, J.).

THE METC CAN NOW ASSUME JURISDICTION OVER ACCION PUBLICIANA CASES:

Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, the plenary action of accion publiciana must be brought before regional trial courts (Bernardo v. Heirs of Villegas, G.R. No. 183357, 15 March 2010). However, with the modifications introduced by Republic Act No. 7691, the jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts (RTC) has been limited to real actions where the assessed value exceeds P20,000.00 or P50,000.00 if the action is filed in Metro Manila. If the assessed value is below the said amounts, the action must be brought before first level courts.  

Clearly, the subject lot, with an assessed value below the jurisdictional limit of P50,000.00 for Metro Manila, comes within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the MeTC under BP 129, as amended. (BF CITILAND CORPORATION vs. MARILYN B. OTAKE, G.R. No. 173351, July 29, 2010, CARPIO, J.).

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PAY THE FILING FEES ON THE SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT:

         The Regional Trial Court acquire jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ action from the moment they filed their original complaint accompanied by the payment of the filing fees due on the same. 


        Thus, the plaintiffs’ non-payment of the additional filing fees due on their additional claims did not divest the RTC of the jurisdiction it already had over the case (PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 358 Phil. 38, 62 (1998). x x x   However, as to the damages that plaintiffs claim under their supplemental complaint, the trial court should have treated their Supplemental Complaint as not filed.  A supplemental complaint is like any complaint and the rule is that the filing fees due on a complaint need to be paid upon its filing. (Section 1 (Payment of Fees) in relation to Section 7 (Fees collectible by the Clerks of Regional Trial Courts for filing an action). 


          The rules do not require the court to make special assessments in cases of supplemental complaints. Plaintiffs have no excuse for their continuous failure to pay the fees they owed the court. x x x (DO-ALL METALS INDUSTRIES vs. SECURITY BANK CORPoration, G.R. No. 176339, January 10, 2011, ABAD, J.).

JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER:

Jurisdiction over the nature of the action and its subject matter THEREOF does not depend upon the defenses set forth in an answer or a motion to dismiss. The same rationale applies to an answer with a motion to dismiss (MONTAÑER vs. SHARI’A DISTRICT COURT, G.R. No. 174975, January 20, 2009, First Division, Puno, C.J.).

JUSTICE MARTIN VILLARAMA, JR.: JURISDICTION IS CONFERRED BY LAW

Jurisdiction is conferred by law based on the facts alleged in the complaint since the latter comprises a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff’s causes of action (IRENE SANTE AND REYNALDOSANTE vs. HON. EDILBERTO T. CLARAVALL, G.R. No. 173915, February 22, 2010, VILLARAMA, JR., J.).