Joy Mart Consolidated Corp vs CA, Phoenix and LRTA Facts: 1978-79 the govt planned the light

rail transi system for the commuting public from baclaran to balintawak monument. The property of joy mart was at carried street, sta. cruz manila where isitann department store is located and 3 adjoining lands which the president hotel leased by joy mart stands. It was among the properties which was to be expropriated. In cooperation, joy mart consented to sell the property and be given the first option to redevelop the entire area. LRTA agreed on such. Later, joy mart constructed 8 storey building amounting to 50million. On Nov 28, 1986 LRTA entered into a commercial stalls Concession contract with Phoenix awarding all the area and commercial spacesand the 15 on-line stations. Joy mart have learned on the said contract and inform LRTA its first option to redevelop. Hence, filed a complaint for specific performace of contract and damages against LRTA and Phoenix before the RTC manila. Joy mart also asked the court to issue a writ of preliminary injunction and/or restraining order, commanding LRA and Phoenix to cease and desist from construction being property adjacent to the leased premises. Judge Luna issued the writ. Phoenix sought relief in CA by filing a petition for certiorari and prohibition to require TC to lift the writ and refrain from implementing it. Meanwhile, in TC, LRTA and Phoenix filed separate answers to joy mart. While the certiorari petition to review before the CA was pending, LRTA and Phoenix filed in te TC a joint petition to dissolve the writ of prelim injunc, alleging it causes tremendous losses to them bec they been unable to use the commercial stalls and would suffer 2.7M damaeges to be earned and rentals. TC dissolve the writ of prelim injunc. Recon of joy mart denied. CA dismissed phoenis petition for certiorari being moot and academic. Joy mart sought relief before the CA for certiorari and prelim injunc and restraining order. Despite the TRO phoenix continued its construction activities. However, the CA dismissed the petition. Issue: W the TC continued to have control of the writ of prelim injunc even after the same had been raisd to the CA for review. Held: Negative.After the LRTA and Phoenix had elevated the writ of prelim injunc to the CA for determination of the propriety of its issuance (CA-G.R. SP No. 12998), the TC (notwithstanding the absence of a TROfrom the appellate court) could not interfere with or preempt the action or decision of the CA on the writ of prelim injunc whose annulment was sought therein by Phoenix and the LRTA. In petitioning the TC to lift the writ of prelim injunc which they themselves had brought up to the CA for review, Phoenix and the LRTA engaged in forum-shopping. After the question of whether the writ of prelim injunc should be annulled or continued had been elevated to the CA for determination, the TC lost jurisdiction or authority to act on the same matter. By seeking from the TC an order lifting the writ of prelim Injunc, Phoenix and LRTA sought to divest the CA of its jurisdiction to review the writ. They improperly tried to moot their own petition in the CA a clear case of trifling with the proceedings in the appellate court or of disrespect for said court. The trial judge played into the hands of Phoenix and the LRTA, and acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction in granting their motion to dissolve the writ of injunction. Judicial courtesy behooved the TC to keep its hands off the writ of prelim injunc and defer to the better judgment of the CA the determination of whether the writ should be continued or discontinued.

The non-issuance of a TRO by the CA upon receipt of the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 12998 simply meant that the TC could proceed to hear and decide the main complaint of Joy Mart for specific performance of contract and damages against the LRTA and Phoenix. It did not give the lower court a license to interfere with the appellate court's disposition of the writ of preliminary injunction. The private respondents' application to the TC for the dissolution of the writ of prelim injunc that was pending review in the CA was a form of forum shopping which this Court views with extreme disapproval. The lower court's proceeding being void for lack of jurisdiction, the writ of preliminary injunction should be reinstated, and the petition to annul the writ (CA-G.R. SP No. 12998) should be dismissed on the ground of forum shopping as provided in Rule No. 17 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines, Rules of Court. Hence, petition Granted.