15.

Against whom is injunction issued

- no court has the power to interfere by injunction with the judgments or decrees of a concurrent or
coordinate jurisdiction having equal power to grant the injunctive relief sought by injunction, except in
cases where third party claimant is involved, in order to prevent one court from nullifying the judgment
or process of another court of the same rank or category, a power which devolves upon the proper
appellate court. . The purpose of the rule is to avoid conflict of power between different courts of coordinate
jurisdiction.
Therefore, a writ of injunction shall not issue against a judgment of a court except in cases of third
party claimant.
TRADERS ROYAL BANK V IAC
G.R. No. !"#
FACTS
-$n %arch #&, #'&!, petitioner Traders Royal (ank filed a case against Remco )lcohol *istillery, +nc before
the RT, -asay for the recover of the sum of -",!&",".&./# obtaining therein a writ of preliminary
attachment directed against the assets and properties of Remco. -ursuant to the writ of attachment,
*eputy 0heriff 0antiago levied among others about 1,22 barrels of aged or rectified alcohol found within
the premises of Remco. ) third party claim was filed with the *eputy 0heriff by herein respondent 3a
Tonde4a, +nc claiming ownership over said attached property, claiming ownership over said property.
53a Tonde4a also filed a complaint in intervention alleging among others that it had made advances to
Remco which totaled -!m and which remains outstanding as of date. 0ubsequently, 3a Tonde4a, without
the foregoing complaint in intervention having passed upon by RT, filed a motion to withdraw praying that
it be allowed to withdraw alcohol and molasses from Remco and which motion was granted.
5The foregoing order was however reconsidered by the -)say ,ourt by virtue of its order declaring that the
alcohol which has not been withdrawn remains in the ownership of Remco. ) motion for reconsideration of
the said order was filed by 3a Tonde4a. +t also prayed that the portion of the order declaring Remco to be
the owner of the subject alcohol be reconsidered and striken off said order. This motion has not been
resolved when a manifestation that it was withdrawing its motion for reconsideration was filed by 3a
Tonde4a
53a Tonde4a then instituted before RT, (ulacan in which it asserted its claim of ownership over the
properties attached and likewise prayed for the issuance of a writ of -reliminary %andatory and -rohibitory
+njunction. ) motion to dismiss 6for the application for -.+.7 was filed by petitioner. 3a Tonde4a filed
opposition to the %T*. 0ubsequently, the questioned order was issued by the respondent 8udge declaring
3a Tonde4a to be the owner of the disputed alcohol and granting the latter9s application for injunctive relief
60heriff :vangelista issued the corresponding writ of preliminary injunction. -asay ,ourt also issued an
order requiring *eputy 0heriff 0antiago to enforce the writ of preliminary attachment previously issued by
said court, by preventing respondeng sheriff and 3) Tonde4a from withdrawing or removing the disputed
alcohol from the Remco ageing warehouse at ,alumpit and requiring respondents to e;plain and show
cause why they should not be cited for contempt for withdrawing or removing said attached alcohol
belonging to Remco, from the latter9s ageing warehouse at ,alumpit, (ulacan.
5-etitioner filed with the +), a petition for certiorari and prohibition with application for writ of preliminary
injunction to annl and set aside the $rder of RT, (ulacan to dissolve the writ of p.i.< to dissolve the writ of
p.i. issued pursuant to said order< to prohibit respondent judge from taking cogni=ance of and assuming
jurisdiction and to compel 3a Tonde4a and -rovincial 0heriff of (>lacan to return the disputed alcohol to
their original location at Remco9s warehouse in (ulacan. +), dismissed the petition for lack of legal and
factual basis. %?R was denied. @ence, this petition.
ISSUE
A$N RT, has the authority to issue, at the instance of a third5party claimant, an injunction enjoining the
sale of property previously levied upon by the sheriff pursuant to a writ of attachment issued by another
RT,.
HELD
Yes
RATIO
Generally, the rule that no court has the power to interfere by injunction with the judgments or decrees of a
concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction having equal power to grant the injunctive relief sought by injunction, is
applied in cases where no third party claimant is involved, in order to prevent one court from nullifying the
judgment or process of another court of the same rank or category, a power which devolves upon the
proper appellate court. The purpose of the rule is to avoid conflict of power between different courts of
coordinate jurisdiction and to bring about a harmonious and smooth functioning of their proceedings.
)s held in %anila @erald -ublishing co. vs RamosB
C+t has been seen that a separate action by the !
rd
party who claims to be the owner of the property
attached is appropriate. +f this is so, it must be admitted that the judge trying such action may render
judgment ordering the sheriff of whoever has in possession the attached property to deliver it to the plaintiff5
claimant or desist from sei=ing it. +t follows further that the court may make an interlocutory order, upon the
filing of such bond as may be necessary, to release the property pending final adjudication of the title.
8urisdiction over an action includes jurisdiction over an interlocutory matter incidental to the casue and
deemed necessary to preserve the subject matter of the suit or protect the parties9 interests. This is self5
evident.
DISPOSITION
-etition dismissed< decision of +), is affirmed.