Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 867 views

    Aquino V Luntok Canon 4.08

    Uploaded by

    Len-Len Cobsilen
    1) Petitioners sought to annul orders from the trial court judge granting a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against petitioners in a civil case. 2) The Supreme Court ruled it was constrained to uphold the grant of the preliminary injunction since the requirements were observed, except for the delay in resolution and issuance. 3) However, the Court reprimanded the trial court judge for the protracted delay and dubious interim orders, which circumvent the rules, and warned of more severe consequences if repeated.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Aquino V Luntok Canon 4.08

    Uploaded by

    Len-Len Cobsilen
    867 views1 page
    1) Petitioners sought to annul orders from the trial court judge granting a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against petitioners in a civil case. 2) The Supreme Court ruled it was constrained to uphold the grant of the preliminary injunction since the requirements were observed, except for the delay in resolution and issuance. 3) However, the Court reprimanded the trial court judge for the protracted delay and dubious interim orders, which circumvent the rules, and warned of more severe consequences if repeated.

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Original Title

    Aquino v Luntok Canon 4.08

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Petitioners sought to annul orders from the trial court judge granting a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against petitioners in a civil case. 2) The Supreme Court ruled it was constrained to uphold the grant of the preliminary injunction since the requirements were observed, except for the delay in resolution and issuance. 3) However, the Court reprimanded the trial court judge for the protracted delay and dubious interim orders, which circumvent the rules, and warned of more severe consequences if repeated.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    867 views1 page

    Aquino V Luntok Canon 4.08

    Uploaded by

    Len-Len Cobsilen
    1) Petitioners sought to annul orders from the trial court judge granting a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against petitioners in a civil case. 2) The Supreme Court ruled it was constrained to uphold the grant of the preliminary injunction since the requirements were observed, except for the delay in resolution and issuance. 3) However, the Court reprimanded the trial court judge for the protracted delay and dubious interim orders, which circumvent the rules, and warned of more severe consequences if repeated.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Aquino v Luntok 184 SCRA 177 (1990)

    Facts:

    In this special civil action for certiorari, with an application for preliminary injunction and/or restraining
    order, petitioners seek the annulment of the following orders of respondent judge in Civil Case No. L-
    361 of the Regional Trial Court of Camarines Sur, entitled "Ludovico B. Peralta vs. Henry B. Rañola
    et al.," to wit: (1) Temporary restraining order (TRO, for brevity), dated August 27, 1987, enjoining
    petitioners herein for a period of twenty (20) days from proceeding or taking action against herein
    private respondent; (2) Order, dated September 16, 1987, extending the efficacy of said TRO for
    another period of twenty (20) days; (3) Order, dated October 6, 1987, indirectly extending the
    efficacy of the TRO for an uncertain period; (4) Order, dated November 4, 1987, granting the
    application for a writ of preliminary injunction; and (5) Order, dated November 5, 1987, approving the
    bond filed by private respondent which led to the eventual issuance of the writ of November 11,
    1987.

    SC Ruling:

    We are constrained to sustain such action of the trial court since, except for the delay in the
    resolution of the application for and the subsequent issuance of the writ, the other requisites
    provided by the rules for the grant thereof have been observed. These considerations
    notwithstanding, we are aware that under the present state of the law which does not nullify a writ of
    preliminary injunction issued beyond the 20-day period where a TRO has been granted, the courts
    may thereby be allowed to do by indirection that which should not be done directly. This is a matter,
    however, which should be remedied by the corresponding amendment of the rule if the intent is to
    nullify a writ of preliminary injunction thus belatedly issued.

    Consequently, there being no other sufficient ground26 to dissolve the injunction in controversy, the
    grant of the writ must sequences of the be upheld but without prejudice to the consequences of the
    conduct of respondent judge. The circumstances under which the writ was granted after a protracted
    delay, punctuated by dubious orders issued in the interim, certainly cannot be countenanced lest
    such conduct be replicated in circumvention of the rules. Specifically, respondent judge failed to
    observe Rule 3.01 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which calls for a judge to be faithful
    to the law and maintain professional competence, and Rule 3.05 which admonishes all judges to
    dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. Definitely,
    this Court cannot gloss over the challenged actuations of respondent judge which are amply
    reflected in the records of this case.

    Respondent judge is hereby REPRIMANDED with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or
    any similar action shall be more severely dealt with by the Court.

    You might also like