Title
Go vs. Villanueva, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 154623
Decision Date
Mar 13, 2009
A third-party claimant sought to halt property auction via injunction, but SC ruled Pasig RTC lacked jurisdiction to interfere with Bacolod RTC's final judgment execution.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 154623)

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Bacolod City issued a decision ordering Looyuko/NAMI to pay Multi-Luck based on their motion for judgment on the pleadings. Consequently, the RTC issued a writ of execution for the sale of properties owned by Looyuko/NAMI. Go filed for an injunction against the auction, claiming he was a business partner of Looyuko and had not been included in the original suit, thus believing he had the right to protect his interests as a co-owner.

Regional Trial Court Decisions

The RTC of Pasig City initially granted Go's request for a temporary restraining order and later issued a writ of preliminary injunction preventing the auction. The court denied Multi-Luck's motion to dismiss Go's complaint, which challenged the RTC's jurisdiction over the matter.

Court of Appeals Review

Multi-Luck subsequently elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reviewed the decisions of the RTC. The CA ruled that the RTC had abused its discretion by granting the injunction, considering there was no clear legal right on Go's part to justify such relief. The CA opined that the Pasig RTC's intervention interfered unlawfully with the judgment of the Bacolod RTC, as it was a coordinate court exercising concurrent jurisdiction.

The Argument of the Petitioner

Go argued that he was a "stranger" to the original complaint (Civil Case No. 98-10404) and thus qualified as a "third-party claimant" under the Rules of Court. He contended that since he was not impleaded in the original case, the judgment rendered therein should not bind his property rights.

Legal Principles and Court’s Rationale

The court reiterated the principle that a court cannot interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders of another court of equal jurisdiction. As the Bacolod RTC had already acquired jurisdiction over the collection case and issued a final judgment, it retained exclusive jurisdiction to handle all proceedings related to its judgment. Therefore, the Pasig RTC's issuance of a preliminary injunction was deemed an overreach of its authority.

Requirements for Issuing a Preliminary Injunction

The decision also examined Go's failure to establish the requisite legal grounds for a preliminary injunction. It emphasized that one must show a clear and positive right that necessitates judicial protection to qualify for such relief. The court highlighted that injunctive relief cannot protect uncertain future rights nor can it be granted without proving an urgent and serious threat to a legally recognized interest.

Agreements Between Parties and Ownership Claims

Go presented agreements alleging his co-ownership of NAMI and related properties. Nonetheless, the

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.