Jimmy T. Go vs. Alberto T. Looyuko Summary

JIMMY T. GO, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO T. LOOYUKO, Respondent.

G.R. Nos. 147923 and 154035 | 2007-10-26

Knowledge entry

Remedy from an order denying a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the rules of court

Related keywords

Motion for voluntary inhibition; for bias and prejudice to be considered valid reasons for inhibition of judges, mere suspicion is not enough, must be proved with clear and convincing evidence
Criminal trial; the matter of deciding who to present as a witness for the prosecution is within the prerogative of the prosecutor
Rule 134, Section 6; Power of the court to stop further evidence; power should be exercised with caution
The matter of deciding who to present as a witness for the prosecution is not for the defendant or the trial court to decide, as it is the prerogative of the prosecutor.
Appellate court has discretion to give due course or dismiss petition not sufficient in form and substance or required documents are not attached or no sworn certificate on non-forum shopping is submitted
Motion for Reconsideration (subsequently denied) is a pre-requisite before a Petition for Certiorari may properly be filed
A writ of injunction becomes moot and academic after the act sought to be enjoined has already been consummated
An inventory does not confer any rights, it is only an ancillary remedy preparatory for the party to an action to institute other legal remedies for the protection of whatever right the party may have over the subject of the inventory
Certiorari Petition under Rule 65 shall not interrupt the course of the principal case unless a TRO or a writ of preliminary injunction has been issued
Laches, being controlled by equitable considerations and addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, is evidentiary in nature and thus can not be resolved in a motion to dismiss
Death of accused extinguishes criminal liability, but civil liability survives if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict

D E C I S I O N

VELASCO, JR., J.:

The Case

Before us are three (3) petitions. The first,[1] G.R. No. 147962, is for certiorari under Rule 65. It assails the February 12, 2001 Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 62438, which granted a Writ of Preliminary Injunction in favor of respondent Looyuko restraining the Orders of the Pasig City Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 69, from enforcing the Orders dated September 25, 2000,[3] December 19, 2000,[4] and December 29, 2000[5] in Civil Case No. 67921 entitled Jimmy T. Go v. Alberto T. Looyuko for Specific Performance, Accounting, Inventory of Assets and Damages; also...