TAN VS CINCO

Facts: Respondents extended a loan to one Dante Tan which was facilitated by Penta Capital. The
loan was secured by Dante’s shares in Best World Resources Corp. (BWRC). When Dante failed
to pay the loan, he proposed to settle it by selling his shares in BWRC and assigning the process
to the respondents. Dante, however, disappeared, leaving his obligation unpaid.

Respondents files a suit in order to collect the sum of money which resulted to the levying on
Dante’s property. Despite the order of the court, Dante’s wife, Herein petitioner, filed in
Paranaque RTC a nullification case regarding the auction sale and the Deed of Sale of the subject
property alleging that the property is their family home. Paranaque RTC granted the case
favoring the petitioner notwithstanding the order of Makati RTC, a co-equal court, which decided
the suit first filed by the respondents.

ISSUE: WON Paranaque RTC violated the doctrine of judicial stability considering that it took
cognizance of the nullification case filed by petitioner and considering further that petitioner was
not impleaded in the first case, hence the Makati RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over her person.

HELD:

Yes, Paranaque RTC violated the doctrine of judicial stability.

The doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference in the regular orders or judgments of a co-
equal court provides that no court can interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders of
another court of concurrent jurisdiction having the power to grant the relief sought by the
injunction.

In this case, Paranaque RTC took cognizance of the petitioner’s nullification case despite the fact
that the collection case from which it emanated falls within the jurisdiction of the Makati RTC,
hence violated the doctrine of judicial stability. The nullification case was improper. The
judgment rendered by Makati RTC as well as its execution may not be interfered with by
Paranaque RTC, a court of concurrent jurisdiction, for the reason that the power to open, modify,
or vacate such is not only possessed but is restricted to the court in which the judgment or order
is rendered or issued.