JOY MART CONSOLIDATED CORPORATION, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, PHOENIX OMEGA DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT CORPORATION and LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 88705
- Promulgated: 1992-06-11
- Ponente: Griño-Aquino, J.
Doctrine
Once the continuance or dissolution of a preliminary injunction is raised to the Court of Appeals for review, the trial court loses jurisdiction or authority to act on that same matter.
A party's attempt to obtain from the trial court an order affecting a writ already under appellate certiorari review constitutes forum-shopping and may amount to grave abuse of discretion by the trial judge who accedes to it.
Rules against simultaneous petitions in different courts (intermediate appellate and Supreme Court) bar filing conflicting remedies and violation may constitute contempt and grounds for summary dismissal.
Facts
Central question presented: whether a trial court has jurisdiction to dissolve a writ of preliminary injunction pending certiorari review in the Court of Appeals.
Joy Mart owned property needed for the LRT; it consented to sell some parcels and was embroiled in litigation over a preliminary injunction issued by the trial court.
Phoenix and LRTA elevated the writ's continuance to the Court of Appeals and then petitioned the trial court to lift the injunction.
Issues
Whether the trial court continued to have control of the writ of preliminary injunction after the matter was raised to the Court of Appeals for certiorari review.
Whether petitioners' act of asking the trial court to dissolve the injunction while review was pending in the Court of Appeals constituted forum-shopping and divested appellate jurisdiction.
Ruling
The Court granted the petition: the Court of Appeals' dismissal of Joy Mart's certiorari petition is annulled and set aside for grave abuse of discretion; the trial court's dissolution of the preliminary injunction is reversed and the injunction reinstated.
The Court of Appeals (Ninth Division) is ordered to hear and decide Joy Mart's contempt petition against Phoenix for alleged defiance of a temporary restraining order.
The Court held that Phoenix and LRTA's praying the trial court to lift the writ while review was pending in the Court of Appeals amounted to forum-shopping and an attempt to divest the appellate court of jurisdiction.
Keywords
G.R. No. 88705, writ of preliminary injunction, jurisdiction, certiorari, expropriation, Deed of Absolute Sale, first option to redevelop, specific performance of contract, damages for breach of contract, restraining order, counterbond, Civil Case No. 87-41731, CA-G.R. SP No. 12998, leasehold rights, Addendum to the Sublease Agreement, amicable settlement, joy mart, trial, consolidated block, injunction