RTC BARNCH 27 LAPU LAPU CITY

Acting on GMCs Omnibus Motion and the Manifestation/Explanation of RD, Judge Risos issued an Order:

1. Ordering LLDHC to show cause in writing within ten (10) daysfrom receipt thereof why it should not be
declared in contempt

2. Issuing a writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction to restrainimmediately all persons acting on orders
or by authority ofintervenor LLDHC from carrying out any and all acts in defianceof such Court’s final and
executory judgment, orders and writ ofexecution aforesaid and the removal of GMC’s machinery
equipment and supplies thereon, as well as the ouster therefromof plaintiffs duly authorized
representatives, personnel andsecurity guards;

3. Issuing a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to directthe ouster of intervenor LLDHC;4. Declaring
in contempt RD of Lapu-Lapu City and directing hisimmediate detention and confinement at the City Jail
of Lapu-lapu City as long as he persists in his interference, disobedienceand obstruction of justice by not
complying with the directives ofsuch Court

SUPREME COURT

LLDHC came to this Court on apetition for certiorari withpreliminary injunction praying that respondents
(GMC and JudgeRisos) cease and desist from proceeding with the execution of thedecision on the theory
that the decision of the RTC Br. 38 Manila is asupervening event which makes it mandatory for
Respondent JudgeRisos to stop execution of the judgment in RTC Br. 27 Lapu-Lapu Citycase.

COURT OF APPEALS

The CA affirmed the Orders of the RTC Br. 27 Lapulapu Cityfreeing the RD from indirect contempt of
court. It also declared withoutforce and effect the Decision of the RTC Br. 38 Manila, as well as the
Orders and Writs issued for the execution and enforcement of thatDecision. The CA enjoined LLDHC, its
agents and representatives, theRTC of Manila and the RD of Lapulapu City from obstructing orinterfering
with the implementation of the Order issued by the Lapu-lapuRTC. Hence, this Petition.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the decision of the Manila RTC could be declaredineffectual by the judgment of
the Lapu-Lapu City RTC

RULING:

1. NO. Courts of coequal and coordinate jurisdiction may not interfere with or pass upon each other’s
orders or processes, since they have the same power and jurisdiction. As correctly stated by the CA,
theDecision rendered by the Manila RTC -- while final and executory --cannot bind herein private
respondent, which was not a party to the casebefore the said RTC. A personal judgment is binding only
upon theparties, their agents, representatives and successors in interest.In its Memorandum, LLDHC
argues that the Decision of theManila RTC is superior to that of the Lapulapu RTC and must
thereforeprevail.We do not agree. The records of the case clearly show that theLapulapu Decision has
become final and executory and is thus valid andbinding upon the parties. Obviously, LLDHC is again
trying anotherbackdoor attempt to annul the final and executory Decision of theLapulapu RTC:1. It was
LLDHC that filed a Notice of Appeal contesting theLapulapu RTC Judgment which was rejected by the
said RTC forbeing frivolous and dilatory. Since petitioner had done nothingthereafter, the Decision clearly
became final and executory.However, upon receipt of the Manila RTC Decision, petitioner found a new
tool to evade the already final Lapulapu Decision by seeking the annulment of the latter in a Petition
with the CA.However, the appellate court dismissed the action, becausepetitioner had been unable to
prove any of the grounds forannulment; namely lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud. Becauseno appeal
had been taken by LLDHC, the ruling of the CA alsobecame final and executory.