2015

Novecio vs. Lim – G.R. No. 193809, March 23, 2015

Facts: Issue: Whether the CA erred in denying the Petitioner the Writ of Preliminary Injunction. Held: Yes, In a prayer for preliminary injunction, the plaintiff is not required to submit conclusive and complete evidence. He is only required to show that he has an ostensible right to the final relief prayed for in his complaint.Continue reading “Novecio vs. Lim – G.R. No. 193809, March 23, 2015”

Phil-Air Conditioning Center V. RCJ Lines And Rolando Abadilla, Jr., – G.R. No. 193821, November 23, 2015

Facts: On various dates between March 5, 1990, and August 29, 1990, petitioner Phil-Air sold to respondent RCJ Lines four Carrier Paris 240 air-conditioning units for buses (units). The units included compressors, condensers, evaporators, switches, wiring, circuit boards, brackets, and fittings. RCJ Lines issued three post-dated checks in favor of Phil-Air to partly cover theContinue reading “Phil-Air Conditioning Center V. RCJ Lines And Rolando Abadilla, Jr., – G.R. No. 193821, November 23, 2015”

Watercraft Venture Corp. vs. Wolfe, – G.R. No. 181721, September 9, 2015

Fraudulent intent is not a physical entity, but a condition of the mind beyond the reach of the senses, usually kept secret, very unlikely to be confessed, and therefore, can only be proved by unguarded expressions, conduct and circumstances. Thus, the applicant for a writ of preliminary attachment must sufficiently show the factual circumstances of the alleged fraud because fraudulent intent cannot be inferred from the debtor’s mere non-payment of the debt or failure to comply with his obligation. The particulars of such circumstances necessarily include the time, persons, places and specific acts of fraud committed. An affidavit which does not contain concrete and specific grounds is inadequate to sustain the issuance of such writ. In fact, mere general averments render the writ defective and the court that ordered its issuance acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction.

Northern Luzon Island Co. vs. Garcia, G.R. No. 203240, March 18, 2015

Attachment is defined as a provisional remedy by which the property of an adverse party is taken into legal custody, either at the commencement of an action or at any time thereafter, as a security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered by the plaintiff or any proper party.

It is an auxiliary remedy and cannot have an independent existence apart from the main suit or claim instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant. Being merely ancillary to a principal proceeding, the attachment must fail if the suit itself cannot be maintained as the purpose of the writ can no longer be justified.

People of the Philippines vs. Luzviminda S. Valdez, G.R. Nos. 216007-09, December 08, 2015, 774 Phil. 723

Facts: Among the subjects of the cases were the reimbursements of expenses of private respondent Luzviminda S. Valdez (Valdez), a former mayor of Bacolod City, particularly: cash slips were altered/falsified to enable Valdez to claim/receive reimbursement from the Government the total amount of P279,150.00 instead of only P4,843.25; thus, an aggregate overclaim of P274,306.75. TheContinue reading “People of the Philippines vs. Luzviminda S. Valdez, G.R. Nos. 216007-09, December 08, 2015, 774 Phil. 723”