33

Pilipino Telephone Corporation vs National Telecommunications

Commision
Facts:
National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) issued PILTEL a
Provisional Authority (PA) to install, operate and maintain telephone
exchanges and public calling offices. While PILTEL's PA was still valid and
subsisting, th International Communications Corporation (ICC) applied with
the NTC for a PA to construct, operate and maintain local exchange services
in some of the areas covered by PILTEL's PA.
PILTEL filed its opposition. However, NTC issued an Order granting ICC
a PA. PILTEL then filed a petition for certiorari to nullify the NTC Order. But
Court of Appeals dismissed it.
Issues:
1. Whether PILTEL properly availed of the remedy of certiorari?
2. Whether NTC committed grave abuse of discretion?
Ruling:
Supreme Court held that a motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite
for a filling of a petition for certionrari. That a petition must exhaust all other
remedies before resorting to certiorari. An exception to this rule arises if the
petitioner raises purely legal issues. However, PILTEL's evidentiary matters or
matters of fact raised in the NTC are not proper grounds in the proceedings
for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. Also, PILTEL's failure to file a
motion for reconsideration rendered its petition for certiorari dismissible
bacause of failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

34
Nisce vs Equitable PCI Bank, Inc,
Facts:
Equitable PCI Bank (Bank) filed a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate
mortgage of spouses Nisce when they failed to pay their obligation. Ex Officio Sheriff set
the sale at public auction.
The Nisce spouses filed a complaint for "nullity of Suretyship Agreement, damages
and legal compensation" with prayer for injunctive relief against the bank and the Ex
Officio Sheriff.
After weighing the parties' arguments along with their documentary evidence, the
RTC declared that justice would be best served if a writ of preliminary injunction would be
issued to preserve the status qou.
The Bank opted not to file a motion for reconsideration of the order, and instead
assailed the trial court's order before the CA via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court. CA rendered judgment granting the petition and nullifying the assailed

Order of the RTC.

Issue:
1. Whether the petition in the Cort of Appeals premature?
2. Whether or not the trial court commited grave abuse of its discretion in issuing
the writ of preliminary injunction?
Ruling:
The general rule is that before filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court, the petitioner is mandated to comply with the condition precedent: the
filling of a motion for reconsideration of the assailed order, and the sunsequent denial of
the court a qou. The filing of a motion for reconsideration is intended to afford the public
respondent an opportunity to correct any actual error attributed to it by way of reexamination of the legal and actual issues. However, the rule is subject to the following
exceptions:
a. Where the order is patently nullity, as where the court a qou has no jurisdiction;
b. Where the question raised in the certiorari proceeding have been duly raised
and passed upon in the lower court;
c. Where there is urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any
further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner or the
subject matter fo the action is perishable;
d. Where, under the circumtances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless;
e. Where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for
relief;
f. Where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting
of such relief by the trial court is improbable;
g. Where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process;
h. Where the proceeding was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity
to object: and
i. Where the issue raised is one purely of law or public interest is involved.
As to the issue of injunction, SC held that injunction is a preservative remedy for
the protection of the parties' substantive rights and interests. The sole aim of a preliminary
injuction is to preserve the status qou within the last actual status that preceded the
pending controversy until the merits of the case can be heard fully.
Section 3, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court provides that a preliminary injunction may
be granted when the pollowing have been established:
a. That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of
such relief consists in restraining the commision or continuance of the act or acts
complained of, or in requireing the performance of an act or acts, either for a limited
period or perpetually:
b. That the commission, continuance or non performance of the act or acts
complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant: or
c. That a party, court, agency or a person is doing threatening, or is attempting to
do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act or acts probably in violation of the
rights of the applicant respecting the action or proceeding, and the tendering to render
judgment ineffectual.
In the absence of proof of a legal right and the injury sustained by the plaintiff, an
order for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injuction would be nullified. Thus, where the
plaintiff's right is doubtful or disputed, a preliminary injuction is not proper.
75
Philippine Pacific Fishing CO., Inc. vs Luna

Facts:
The Philippine Pacific Fishinf Co., Inc. (PPFC) through its officers obtain a loan and
mortgaged to the Philippine Banking Corporation (PBC) its fishing vessels, to secure
payment of a debt. Upon default, PBC instituted foreclossure proceedings and filed an
action for replevin. To prevent foreclosure, PPFC officers made an agreement with Cheng
Yong, one of the defendants. Cheng Yong paid the indebtedness of PPFC and they then
executed a chattel mortgage of the two vessels to Cheng Yong.
Upon failure of PPFC to pay the debt, Cheng Yong foreclose the mortgage. PPFC's
officers went then to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and filed a
complaint, alleging that the controversy between Chng Yong and PPFC was intracorporate. SEC restrained the forclosure proceedings and thereafter the parties agreed to
the formation of a Management Committee, with powers among others, 'to take custody
and possession of all assets, funds, properties and records of the corporation; and 'to
administer, manage and preserve such assets, funds and records.
On the same date, private respondents filed an ex-parte motion for resolution of
the Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila, praying that an order be
issued directing the Clerk of Court or his authorized deputy to give due course to the
complaint of the herein private respondents upon payment of the docket fee.
Isssue:
Whether or not the CFI has jurisdiction to restrain the SEC?
Ruling:
Supreme Court held that a court cannot restrain or enjoin an act outside its
territorial jurisdiction as SEC is co-equal with the CFI. Only the Supreme Court may issue
a restrianing order against the SEC.