Effect of Lack of Jurisdiction:

Tan Vs. Cinco et al.

G.R. No. 213054, June 15, 2016

Facts:

Respondents extended a loan to one Dante Tan which was facilitated by Penta
Capital. The loan was secured by Dante’s shares in Best World Resources Corp.
(BWRC). When Dante failed to pay the loan, he proposed to settle it by selling his shares
in BWRC and assigning the process to the respondents. Dante, however, disappeared,
leaving his obligation unpaid.

Respondents files a suit in order to collect the sum of money which resulted to the
levying on Dante’s property. Despite the order of the court, Dante’s wife, herein
petitioner, filed in Paranaque RTC a nullification case regarding the auction sale and the
Deed of Sale of the subject property alleging that the property is their family home.
Paranaque RTC granted the case favoring the petitioner notwithstanding the order of
Makati RTC, a co-equal court, which decided the suit first filed by the respondents.

Issue:

Whether or not Paranaque RTC violated the doctrine of judicial stability.

Ruling:

Yes, Paranaque RTC violated the doctrine of judicial stability.

The doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference in the regular orders or judgments of
a co- equal court provides that no court can interfere by injunction with the judgments or
orders of another court of concurrent jurisdiction having the power to grant the relief
sought by the injunction.
In this case, Paranaque RTC took cognizance of the petitioner’s nullification case
despite the fact that the collection case from which it emanated falls within the
jurisdiction of the Makati RTC, hence violated the doctrine of judicial stability. The
nullification case was improper. The judgment rendered by Makati RTC as well as its
execution may not be interfered with by Paranaque RTC, a court of concurrent
jurisdiction, for the reason that the power to open, modify, or vacate such is not only
possessed but is restricted to the court in which the judgment or order is rendered or
issued