● What is the effect of the pendency of a special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court on the principal case before the lower court? (Bar 2013)

(A) It always interrupts the course of the principal case.

(B) It interrupts the course of the principal case only if the higher court issues a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction against the lower court.

(C) The lower court judge is given the discretion to continue with the principal case.

(D) The lower court judge will continue with the principal case if he believes that the special civil action was meant to delay proceedings.

(E) Due respect to the higher court demands that the lower court judge temporarily suspend the principal case.

Answer: B


● Diaz vs. Diaz, G.R. No. 135885. April 28, 2000

Facts: 

A filed a case for sum of money against B. B filed a motion to dismiss but was denied. He sought reconsideration. On January 22, 1998, he received the court's Order denying his motion for reconsideration. At that time, B had only five (5) days from receipt of the Order, or until January 27, 1998, within which to file an answer. He, however, did not file an answer but instead file a petition for certiorari before the CA on February 6, 1998. Thus, on February 16, 1998, A filed a motion to declare B in default. The court granted the motion. 

In his petition for review to the SC, A argued that he could expected to file an answer because he intended to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. He further submitted that the notice of denial provided in Section 4 of Rule 16 referred to a decision or resolution of the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, denying a petition for certiorari with finality. Until resolved, he contended that the period provided for in said section does not apply to him. Is A correct?

Held:

When A filed his Petition for Certiorari with the CA on February 6, 1998, he was already in default. Hence, the filing of said Petition for Certiorari cannot be considered as having interrupted the reglementary period for filing an answer. More importantly, Section 7, Rule 65 of the Rules provides that:

SEC. 7. Expediting proceedings; injunctive relief. The court in which the petition is filed may issue orders expediting the proceedings, and it may also grant a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction for the preservation of the rights of the parties pending such proceedings. The petition shall not interrupt the course of the principal case unless a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction has been issued against the public respondent from further proceeding in the case. 

In Santiago v. Vasquez, we explained that:

The original and special civil action filed with this Court is, for all intents and purposes, an invocation for the exercise of its supervisory powers over lower courts. It does not have the effect of divesting the inferior courts of jurisdiction validly acquired over the case pending before them. It is elementary that the mere pendency of a special civil action for certiorari commenced in relation to a case pending before a lower court, does not even interrupt the course of the latter when there is no writ of injunction restraining it. The inevitable conclusion is that for so long as no writ of injunction or restraining order is issued in the special civil action for certiorari, no impediment exists and there is nothing to prevent the lower court from exercising its jurisdiction and proceeding with the case pending before it. And even if such injunctive writ or order is issued, the lower court nevertheless continues to retain its jurisdiction


● Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 166859, June 26, 2006

Section 7 of Rule 65 provides the general rule that the mere pendency of a special civil action for Certiorari commenced in relation to a case pending before a lower court or court of origin does not stay the proceedings therein in the absence of a writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order.