1.

Topic: Non-Interference with the orders and processes of a coordinate and co-
equal court
2. Eldefonso Del Rosario and Josefino Ortiz v. Cristina Ocampo- Ferrer
3. Nature of Action: petition for review on Certiorari
4. Court of Origin: RTC Las PInas Branch 275
5. Facts:
 Cristina-Ocampo (R) obtained a loan in the amount of P850,000 from
Eldefonso Del Rosario (P), secured by a parcel of land in Caluan Laguna
 R defaulted on her loan
 P filed a complaint for a sum of money before the RTC Las Pinas (Br 275)
 P and R entered into a compromise agreement where R bound herself to
pay 1.2 M on or before June 19, 2005 and upon receipt of payment, P will
return the owner’s duplicate copy of the land
 R still failed to comply so P moved for execution which the RTC Las Pinas
which was granted
 Sheriff Ortiz issued a demand notice of pay but still failed so he levied the
the land of R in Las Pinas (not the one in Laguna) and Del Rosario became
the highest bidder and given a certificate of sale
 R filed a complaint before RTC Las Pinas (Br 198) for annulment of sale as
well as payment for damages on the basis of unlawful acts in enforcing
the writ of execution
 P argued :
 Barred by prior civil case and never challenged it there
 Subject matter of the Prior civil case is not within the jurisdiction
of RTC las pinas 198 as it is a coequal court of RTC Las Pinas 275
 RTC Las Pinas 198 Ruling
 Dismissed complaint of R for lack of merit and ordered Del
Rosario (P) to return owner’s duplicate of land in Laguna as
obligation has already been extinguished by the levy
 R failed to prove that actions of Petitioners were unlawful and
illegal
 R filed for MR but denied so appealed to CA
 CA Ruling
 Reversed RTC 198 and declared null and void the levy
perfomed and certificate of sale
 Manner of execution was defective
 Rule 39 sec 9 no showing that sheriff made R choose which
of her properties should be levied
 Even if R were made to choose, Sheriff should go first to her
personal properties and only then can he go after real
properties
 P MR but denied
 P files before SC
6. Issue WON RTC 198 can acquire jurisdiction of case decided by RTC 275 (NO)
7. Ratio
 Doctrine of Judicial Stability or noninterference in the regular orders of
judgements of a coequal court
  No court can interfere by injunction with the judgements or
orders of another court of concurrent jurisdiction having the
power to grant relief sought by injunction
 Rationale:
 Founded on the concept of jurisdiction:
a. A court that acquires jurisdiction over the case and
renders judgement therein has jurisdiction over its
judgement, to the exclusion of all other coordinate
courtsm for its execution and over all incidents, and
to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of
ministerial officers acting in connection with this
judgment
 A court which issued a writ of execution has the inherent
power, for the advancement of justice, to correct errors of
its ministerial officers and to control its own processes. To
hold otherwise would be to divide the jurisdiction of the
appropriate forum in the resolution incidents arising in
execution proceedings.
 Splitting of jurisdiction is obnoxious to the orderly
administration of justice
 REMEDY: not to resort to another co-equual body but to a higher
court to nullify the action of issuing court
 This is precisely the judicial power that the 1987 Const
under ART VIII sec 1 par 2 speaks of and which this Court
has operationalized through a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65
 The appropriate action is to assail the implementation of
the writ before the issuing court in whose behalf the sheriff
acts, and upon failure, to seek redress through a higher
judicial body
 AS APPLIED IN THIS CASE
 When RTC 275 took cognizance of this case, it acquired FULL
jurisdiction over the matters at hand, to the exclusion of all other
coordinate courts
 Sheriff only executed the writ of execution by RTC 275
 Cannot be assailed before RTC 198 as it would violate the
doctrine of Judicial stability of interference
 Proper action should be to file an action before a higher court
that has the authority to nullify such orders
 Dispositive: Granted and Set Aside CA decision and RTC 198 decision
dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
8.