8/13/2019 1981 & 82 BAR EXAMS
2/3
Question No. 20
The City Fiscal of Manila received a criminal complaint against
DD and EE for violation of the
Corporation Law for engaging in activities not within the
purpose clause of the corporation of
which they are principal officers.
While the complaint was under preliminary investigation, a
minority stockholder of said
corporation filed a minority suit before the CFI of Rizal in
relation to the same activities of the
corporation. One of the allegations in the CFI was the validity
of the transaction subject matter of
the criminal complaint before the City Fiscal of Manila.
DD and EE intervened in the Rizal case and asked that the
criminal investigation in Manila be
enjoined since the civil case in Rizal involved a prejudicial
civil question.
Does the CFI of Rizal have jurisdiction to issue a Writ of
Injunction to enjoin the City Fiscal of Manila
as prayed for by DD and EE? Explain.
Answer
No. The CFI of Rizal may not issue a writ of preliminary
injunction to restrain or enjoin acts
being done or about to be done outside its territorial
boundaries. (This is the first alternative
answer and the one that relates to provisional remedies)
1982 BAR EXAMS
Question No. 3
Branch XXV of the CFI of Manila rendered a decision against Mrs.
Reyes, ordering her to pay
damages to Mr. Cruz. After the decision became final, personal
properties of Mrs. Reyes in Bulacan
were levied on execution by the sheriff. Mrs. Santos filed an
action for injunction before the CFI of
Bulacan to enjoin provincial sheriff of Bulacan from proceeding
with the sale, alleging that she was
the owner of the properties. Mr. Cruz filed a motion to dismiss
the action alleging that the Bulacan
court could not interfere with the action taken by the Manila
Court. The CFI of Bulacan, however,
denied the motion to dismiss and granted the preliminary
injunction. Mr. Cruz filed a petition for
certiorari, alleging that the CFI of Bulacan did not have
jurisdiction to enjoin the sale because (1)
said act constituted an interference with an order issued by a
court with concurrent jurisdiction;
and (2) Mrs. Santos did not file a third-party claim with the
provincial sheriff before filing the
action.
If you were the judge, how would you rule on the contentions of
Mr. Cruz? Give your reasons.
Answer
I would dismiss the petition for certiorari.
8/13/2019 1981 & 82 BAR EXAMS
3/3
The first contention of Mr. Cruz is not tenable. Mrs. Santos a
third-party claimant, may
vindicate her claim by action. Obviously a judgment rendered in
her favor declaring her to
be the owner of the property would not constitute interference
with the powers or
processes of the court which rendered the judgment to enforce
which the execution was
levied. If that be so, then an interlocutory order, such as a
preliminary injunction upon a
claim and prima facie showing of ownership, cannot be considered
as such interferenceeither. Moreover, the court which rendered the
judgment did not direct the sheriff to levy
upon the particular property in dispute. The order was for him
to levy upon properties of
the judgment debtor without specifying them, not upon properties
of a third party.
The second contention is also not tenable. The Rules of Court
provide that nothing therein
contained shall prevent a third-party claimant from vindicating
his claim to the property by
any proper action. Hence, the filing of a third-party claim is
not a pre-requisite to the filing
of the action for injunction.
Question No. 15
Edward filed a complaint against Liza for accounting of the
money received by her as administratrix
of Edwards hacienda. In his complaint, Edward prayed for
preliminary attachment, alleging that
Liza was about to depart from the Philippines. Attached to the
complaint was an affidavit executed
by Marilyn to the effect that Liza told her that she, Liza, was
planning to leave for Singapore in a few
days. If you were the judge, would you grant the prayer for
preliminary attachment? Why?
Answer
No, because the mere fact that Liza was about to depart from the
Philippines is not a ground
for granting preliminary attachment. Facts and circumstance
should have been stated in the
affidavit to show intent to defraud her creditors in order to
justify such grant.
