1-1. Barroso Vs Judge Omelio

 

BARROSO VS JUDGE OMELIO GR. No. 194767, OCT. 14, 2015 FACTS:

Barroso filed a complaint for collection of sum of money, damages, and attorney’s fees against Dennis Li. The complaint includes a writ of attachment which was granted with the corresponding attachment bond. Dennis Li, on the other hand, filed a counter-attachment bond issued by Travelers Insurance and Surety Corporation (Travelers). Thereafter, Barroso filed a motion for approval of compromise agreement which was granted by the t he Court and issued a writ of execution. Regardless of the agreement, Dennis Li still failed to pay the sums of money and a w writ rit of execution was returned by sheriff unsatisfied. An alias writ of execution was later issued against Dennis Li and Travelers based on the counter bond filed by Dennis Li. Travelers asked a period of 7 days to validate the counter-bond, however, they filed a separate case for Declaration of Nullity, Prohibition, Injunction and Damages which was raffled to RTC 14. Judge Omelio of RTC 14 issued a preliminary injunction. ISSUE: Did the Judge Omelio committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of  jurisdiction? RULING: Yes. Under the doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference in regular courts or judgments of a co-equal court is an elementary principle in the administration of justic justice e that “no court can interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders of another court of concurrent jurisdiction having the power to grant relief sought by the injunction. The rationale for the rule is founded on the t he concept of jurisdiction: a court that acquires  jurisdiction over the case and renders judgment therein has jurisdiction over its judgment to the exclusion of all other coordinate courts for its execution and over all its incidents, and to co control, ntrol, in furtherance of justice, the conduct c onduct of ministerial officers acting in connection with this judgment. Thus, a case where an execution e xecution order has been issued is considered as still pending in court, so that all the proceedings on the execution are still proceedings in the suit.