Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

Remedial Law Review Lecture

March 6, 2019

Rule 58: Preliminary Injunction

Fiscals are not subject to restraining order.

The rule makes it so that the certiorari, in order to be fully effective, must be accompanied by a restraining
order.

The issue in certiorari is the defect in the procedure and to continue further on the part of the trial court might
just be the result of the defective procedure.

Any petitioner in a special civil action for certiorari will always ask for a restraining order or to restrain the trial
court from further proceeding with the case.

If you would observe, those are government instrumentalities that are not subject of TRO or injunction. But
when it comes to performance of duties, at times, it is not injunction but prohibition. That is why there is
certiorari with prohibition.

Now, how about other government agencies or instrumentalities, can they be subject of injunction? Yes. The
Rules make no distinction as to public or private individuals. However, when it comes to certiorari, usually public
figures, except corporations.

Rule 59: Receivership

Who is usually affected by receivership?


At least 2 individuals or entities are involved. One whose assets are to be preserved and the other is one who
has a claim over the assets of the former.

What is the purpose of receivership?


Because of the danger of the dissipation or mismanagement of the assets. if the former entity is to be left to
manage itself, another person has to be appointed to manage it to preserve its assets.

This is always a relationship between debtor and creditor. It is for the benefit of the creditor that the assets of
the debtor be managed by another. The receiver assumes a fiduciary relationship with the debtor (individual or
corporation).

Whenever a fiduciary relationship exists, there is a requirement of a bond. Breach of that relationship would
give rise to criminal consequences or prosecution.

What is the effect of a receivership on the management of the corporation?


The receiver does not technically take over the management of the corp. They do not replace the board. That’s
not the case. It’s just that, it is the receiver’s duty that the board’s decisions would not be harmful to the
corporation, and therefore to the creditors the receiver represents.

Kadalasan, pag may receivership, it is the death of the corporation. Although the idea of receivership is to
rehabilitate the corporation. But more often than not, it leads to the ultimate decline and deterioration of the
corporation, which would finally end in liquidation.
A good example of this is the PCGG. This is not necessarily receivership but similar. When they took over
companies, businesses, which was suspected to have been granted crony privileges, almost all… all of them
ubos. Because they took over the management. This was not confiscation, this was just… this was different from
what happened after the cessation of hostilities after WWII. What happened then was confiscation and seizure
of real properties. Etong sa PCGG, this was not confiscation. They would just act as the trustees for the ultimate
owner or beneficiaries of those corporations. The aim is for the preservation of the assets or continuation of
the business.

I have never heard of a company under receivership that extended its business operations. Kadalasan, pag
nagkaron na ng receivership, punta na sa korte for liquidation. Like what happened to UniWide… (Si Horace
nakapagsabi na Uniwide kasi di na raw siya bata). All their gains in their wholesale business was used to cover
their losses for their real estate business. So anong nangyari? Parehong bumagsak. But before that, they were
accepting items from suppliers. They just stopped paying. And then the creditors were just informed that
UniWide was under receivership. Bakit? Hindi natin alam kung anong nangyari… Buti pang di na lang sila nag-
receivership. Dapat nag-apply na lang for insolvency or bankruptcy. Baka mas ok pa…

But would it be worth your while to be a receiver?


Yes. Because when it comes to liquidation and distribution of assets, the receiver is in charge. He decides how
obligations are discharged.

How is this different from insolvency?


They are both judicial actions. Yung insolvency, diretso. There is a premise that the assets are less than the
obligations. There is no way that financial standing could be revived. Receivership is based on an optimistic
presumption.

As to the form required in filing the case in court? Petiton for receivership
“On behalf of a certain individual or company, petition to be appointed receiver of a company.”

Marami bang kasong ganito?


Usually mga institutions. What institution handles this for banks? PDIC.

Rule 60: Replevin

Oh you know this! Replevin always involves personal property. Meaning to say the property is in the possession
of someone else. Because if the property is in the possession of the one with interest in the property, then there
is no need for replevin.

For example, yung nag-eextend ng loans for car purchases. May agents etong mga institutions whose job is to
talk to the borrowers para i-turn over na possession ng sasakyan para no need to go to court. Yung ibang nakita
ko noon, yung ginawa, inspection lang daw. Pinaandar kunyari, nilock, tapos umalis na. Is that carnapping? No!
No intent to gain! Is that coercion? NO! Binigay yung susi! There is no crime. It’s not a crime naman to have
been sweet talked into giving the keys to the bank’s representative.

But something happened in Pampanga, this is Eastwest Bank. Yung kanilang representative, talked to the
borrower who happened to be a police officer. Ang ginawa ng police, binigay yung susi and called up his
colleagues in the force tapos sinabi “Pare na-carnap kotse ko!” Nung nakita yung kotse, pinagbabaril. Patay yung
representative ng Eastwest Bank!
The action is for replevin. The ancillary writ issued is the writ of replevin.

Does this require a hearing? YES


With notice? NO! Otherwise, this would defeat the purpose! Magtatago na yung borrower kung malaman niya.

So instead, what do you think they will do? Nagfile ng replevin, di makita yung kotse. Anong gagawin? Is it legally
possible to file a case for recovery of money?
It seems that if you already chose replevin and it is unsuccessful, you cannot file for recover money. Choice of
one remedy bars availing of another in credit transactions. (Di sure si Sir. Ganyan daw inexplain sa kanila.)

Supposing the value of the property is worth less than the amount of the obligation. Meron bang deficiency
judgment? No.

The remedies are alternative, not cumulative. One without the other, not one after the other.

The main action for replevin is just a means to get a hold of the personal property, usually the car! The
mortgagee there really has no interest to pursue the main action for replevin. But we cannot have an ancillary
writ of replevin without the main action. Di pa nga nagsisimula yung kaso, but at least, there is something
positive for the mortagee, the writ! Kapag may writ na, di na pakiusapan yan, sapilitan na yan!

Then as we have discussed way way before, once the mortgagee got what he wanted by writ of replevin, then
the mortgagee has no more use for the main action!

Dismissal as a matter of right! ??


Parang ano lang yan, ligaw nang ligaw sa babae pero pag nakuha na yung gusto, nawawala na. Nagtatago na, di
na nagbayad.

Rule 61: Support Pendente Lite

Who is to be supported and who will support? Pwede bang contractual?


What we have here is when the source of obligation is law.

What is the basis?


Usually family relationship

Aside from that, meron pa ba?


What a person gets from another might not always come in the form of support. May be pension or annuities,
but not always support.

The main action is support. The provisional remedy is support pendent lite. That means pending litigation.

Assuming that a person is entitled to support, and the corresponding obligation on the part of the person who,
under the law, is liable to give support, is there. Do mere right and obligation necessarily lead to support in the
sense that money is to be given by one to the other?
No.

First thing to consider is to financial capability to give support. If that person could not support himself, how can
he support another. But that is not to be confused with abandonment.
Halimbawa, walang trabaho yung husband. It has always been the wife who provides for the family. Tapos hindi
matiis nung lalaki yung ganun, umalis siya. Is that abandonment?
If the husband does not initially provide support, then him leaving does not constitute abandonment. The basis
for abandonment being a criminal act is that the person who abandoned his family was initially providing
support. That when he left his family, he stopped giving support.

Support within legitimate relationships. Support within illegitimate relationships.

Yung isang mother on behalf of her child demands support from the putative father. ??? (Di na niya tinuloy yung
kwento)

You know why the name “Jose” is given the name “Pepe”? Malayo di ba? Paano mo palalapitin? Jose, padre
putatibo. “P.P.” Putative father of Jesus. That’s why “Pepe”

For an illegitimate child, what would be the basis why the putative/alleged father is to support an illegitimate
child? Basta ba establish the relationship? E sabi nung father, di ako sigurado na ako yung tatay niyan. Sabi nung
nanay, may video! Hindi yung sa iba, yung sayo, sakto! DNA kunyari. DNA. Is that enough under the law?
No. It is recognition. An action for compulsory recognition should follow.

What is the basis of action for compulsory recognition? The proof!

(insert kwento here)

Once support has been ordered by the court, AH IBA TREATMENT DITO! Failure to comply will lead to…
COMTEMPT! Di tulad nung iba na wala lang, ditto contempt.

Abandonment means hindi nagbibigay ng support. For instance, if the husband left but continues to provide for
the material needs of the family, does he commit a crime? No! Can he be compelled to live with the family? No!

But once support is ordered, iba na.

Now, supposing the husband lives with the family, does not have a job, does not support the family, cannot
even support himself. Does he commit a crime? No! Because the obligation to give support is predicated on
one’s ability to give support. You cannot squeeze blood out of… Di mo naman pala kaya… That’s not a crime!

How about between live-in partners, anong obligation ng support? NOTHING! But they are considered to be in
a partnership. And the properties they have are deemed to be co-owned. But as to support, wala yan.

Meron ngang isang illegitimate father. Gusto niya makuha yung anak niya dahil daw he is in a better position to
provide for his child. Sabi ko sa illegitimate relationship na ganyan, wala kang right, obligasyon lahat! Walang
parental authority, walang right of custody, obligasyon to support meron! Lahat lang sa kanila obligasyon. Kapag
di nagprovide ng support, may abandonment ba diyan? No. It only arises in legitimate relationships. But once
support has been awarded by the court, ibang usapan na yan! Kwan na yan. Violation of that could lead to
contempt.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS

Bakit special civil actions?


Sabi ko summary pero di naman lahat summary proceedings. I would like to believe that the distinction lies in
the nature of the cause of action. Dito sa civil actions, di mo makikita yung cause of action based on the five
sources of obligations.

Rule 62: Interpleader

Bakit ba nag-iinterpleader? Why do you interplead? Who does it?


A third party! To join the

Anong ibig sabihin nitong nag-iinterplead as a defendant?


Hindi ka nademanda! Ikaw ang nagdemanda sa sarili mo!

Halimbawa, mga assignees, at times they would interplead. But, as they say, if there is already a transfer of
interest, interpleader might not be the proper remedy. It might be substitution or joinder. But if assignee is
disputed by assignor, pwede yan!

INTERVENTION PALA YUNG SINASABI NIYA

Interpleader means who among these idiots has a claim over something.

Is it necessary that there should be conflicting claims over the subject property? Or can a party who claims no
interest even if ther

What is the difference between interpleader and judicial consignation?


In judicial consignation, there are no conflicting claims. The other party does not exercise his right or refuses to
exercise his right against the party required to perform the obligation. Nagbabayad na nga ayaw pang tanggapin.
And the party who has the right to the property is known, except that he refuses to exercise the right. In
interpleader, it is unknown. The theory is one files a case in order to determine who between the conflicting
parties has the right. YAN! MAGLABAN KAYO DIYAN! Maraming requirements sa judicial consignation. Sa
interpleader, there should be an allegation that there are conflicting claims. If nobody claims it, then it is yours!

What makes this different from ordinary civil action?


Tingnan niyo. Nagfile ng kaso for interpleader. Anong cause of action niya? Usually sa ordinary civil action, yung
nagfifile ng kaso is one who is asserting a right. Dito hindi! One who denounces a right! Wala akong karapatan
diyan, maglaban sila!

In what form should the interpleader be? Motion to interplead

What are the allegations?


Main allegation is that there should be a conflicting claim.

Is that an initiatory pleading? Yes.

Supposing there is no affidavit of non-forum shopping, it will be dismissed. If dismissed, GOOD! IT IS NOW MINE!

What’s the rule of non-forum shopping when it comes to actions other than ordinary civil actions? For instance,
certiorari. The rule requires that it be covered by a certificate of non-forum shopping. But in the Rules, there is
no express requirement under the Rule on Interpleader.
And once the complaint for interpleader has been filed, how would summons be served? Sec. 3.

Sa youtube, sabi na sa States daw, may law offices na connected sa big businesses na ang kanilang trabaho ay
mgfile ng cases sa lower court to lose. So that on appeal, andun yung controversy. And the case would reach
the Supreme Court and then they try to win there.

Motion to dismiss – filed by the conflicting claimants


So does that mean that there are no conflicting claims? Or the propriety of interpleader

BLA BLA BLA BAT AKO TINATANONG NI SIR -_-

Вам также может понравиться