(70) METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY

v. COURT OF APPEALS and ALFONSO ROXAS CHUA

G.R. No. 110147
April 17, 2001

If an order leaves something to be done by the trial court with respect to the merits of
the case, it is interlocutory; if it does not, it is final. Once determined to be final, the
order may be the subject of an appeal.
(71) DOMINGO NEYPES, LUZ
v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 141524
September 14, 2005

A party litigant may either file his notice of appeal within 15 days from receipt of the
Regional Trial Courts decision or file it within 15 days from receipt of the order (the final
order) denying his motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration. The new 15-day
period may be availed of only if either motion is filed; otherwise, the decision becomes
final and executory after the lapse of the original appeal period provided in Rule 41,
Section 3.

(72) JULIET VITUG MADARANG and ROMEO BARTOLOME, represented by his

attorneys-in-fact and acting in their personal capacities, RODOLFO and RUBY
BARTOLOME
v. SPOUSES JESUS D. MORALES and CAROLINA N. MORALES
G.R. No. 199283
June 9, 2014

A petition for relief from judgment is an equitable relief granted only under exceptional
circumstances. To set aside a judgment through a petition for relief, parties must file the
petition within 60 days from notice of the judgment and within 6 months after the
judgment or final order was entered; otherwise, the petition shall be dismissed outright.
If the petition for relief is filed on the ground of excusable negligence of counsel, parties
must show that their counsel’s negligence could not have been prevented using
ordinary diligence and prudence.
OPTION NIYO NA KUNG IDARAGDAG NIYO ‘TO:
The mere allegation that there is excusable negligence simply because counsel was 80
years old is a prejudicial slur to senior citizens. It is based on an unwarranted stereotype
of people in their advanced years. It is as empty as the bigotry that supports it.

(73) DAVAO LIGHT & POWER CO., INC.

v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, QUEENSLAND HOTEL or MOTEL or QUEENSLAND
TOURIST INN, and TEODORICO ADARNA
G.R. No. 93262
December 29, 1991

Writs of attachment may properly issue ex parte provided that the Court is satisfied that
the relevant requisites therefor have been fulfilled by the applicant, although it may, in
its discretion, require prior hearing on the application with notice to the defendant; but
that levy on property pursuant to the writ thus issued may not be validly effected unless
preceded, or contemporaneously accompanied, by service on the defendant of
summons, a copy of the complaint (and of the appointment of guardian ad litem, if any),
the application for attachment (if not incorporated in but submitted separately from the
complaint), the order of attachment, and the plaintiff's attachment bond.

(74) THOMAS YANG

v. THE HONORABLE MARCELINO R. VALDEZ, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial
Court, 11th Judicial Region, Branch XXII, General Santos City, SPS. RICARDO
MORANTE and MILAGROS MORANTE
G.R. No. 73317
August 31, 1989

Under Section 5 of Rule 60, petitioner may "at any time before the delivery of the
property to the plaintiff" require the return of the property; in Section 6 of Rule 60, he
may do so, "within five (5) days after the taking of the property by the officer." Both
these periods are mandatory in character. Thus, a lower court which approves a
counter-bond filed beyond the statutory periods, acts in excess of its jurisdiction.

(The decisional principle on the filing of counter replevin bond to entitle the defendant to
the redelivery or retaining possession of the property is compliance with all the
conditions precedent pursuant to the rules, and failure to comply therewith entitles
plaintiff to possession, and the initial steps in obtaining redelivery must be taken within
the time limit provided thereto.)

(75) LETICIA NAGUIT AQUINO, et al.

v. CESAR B. QUIAZON, et al.
G.R. No. 201248
March 11, 2015

Failure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency allegation in the pleading.
On the other hand, lack of cause of action is the insufficiency of factual basis for the
action.

In determining the existence of a cause of action, only the allegations in the complaint
may properly be considered. For the court to do otherwise would be a procedural error
and a denial of the plaintiff’s right to due process.

(76) TERLYNGRACE RIVERA

v. FLORENCIO L. VARGAS
G.R. No. 165895
June 5, 2009

Not only should the writ or order of replevin comply with all the requirements as to
matters of form or contents prescribed by the Rules of Court. The writ must also satisfy
proper service in order to be valid and effective: i.e. it should be directed to the officer
who is authorized to serve it; and it should be served upon the person who not only has
the possession or custody of the property involved but who is also a party or agent of a
party to the action.

(77) BP PHILIPPINES, INC. (FORMERLY BURMAH CASTROL PHILIPPINES, INC.)

v. CLARK TRADING CORPORATION
G.R. No. 175284
September 19, 2012

The main action for injunction is distinct from the provisional or ancillary remedy of
preliminary injunction which cannot exist except only as part of or an incident of an
independent action or proceeding. The writ of injunction would issue upon the
satisfaction of two requisites, namely: (1) the existence of a right to be protected; and
(2) acts which are violative of said right.
Injunction is not designed to protect contingent or future rights. Where the complainant’s
right is doubtful or disputed, injunction is not proper. The possibility of irreparable
damage without proof of actual existing right is not a ground for an injunction.

(78) SUSAN LIM-LUA

vs. DANILO Y. LUA
G.R. Nos. 175279-80
June 5, 2013

The matter of increase or reduction of support should be submitted to the trial court in
which the action for declaration for nullity of marriage was filed. The amount of support
may be reduced or increased proportionately according to the reduction or increase of
the necessities of the recipient and the resources or means of the person obliged to
support.
OPTION NIYO NA KUNG IDARAGDAG NIYO ‘TO:
Judgment for support does not become final. The right to support is of such nature that
its allowance is essentially provisional; for during the entire period that a needy party is
entitled to support, his or her alimony may be modified or altered, in accordance with his
increased or decreased needs, and with the means of the giver. It cannot be regarded
as subject to final determination (Advincula v. Advincula).

(79) GORGONIO PANDES

v. HON. JOSE TEODORO, SR., et al.
G.R. No. L-6666
May 12, 1954

1. The exemption from attachment, garnishment or sale under execution of properties

under receivership is not absolute. Such properties may not be levied upon "except by
leave of the Court appointing the receiver."

2. Real estate in the custody of a receiver can be levied upon and sold under execution,
provided only that the actual possession of the receiver is not interfered with. The
reason is that only a receiver’s possession of property subject to receivership is entitled
to protection against interference.

3. The interference enjoined is that resulting from orders or processes of a court "other"
than that which appointed the receiver, the rule being predicated upon the need of
preventing "unseemly conflicts between courts whose jurisdiction embraces the same
subjects and persons."

4. The possession by the receiver is not affected by an order of court directing the sale
at public auction of whatever rights, interest or participation a partner has or might have
in the partnership which has a personality separate and distinct from that of its
partners.

5. Properties which are not under custodia legis are subject to levy, even without the
permission of the court appointing the receiver.