Traders Royal v IAC

Facts:
Corporation X filed a case against Corporation Y for the recovery of sum of money and obtained a Writ of
Preliminary Attachment directed against the assets and properties of Corporation Y.

Consequently, the Pasay City Sheriff levied barrels of aged alcohol found within Corporation Y’s
premises.

Corporation Z filed a third-party-complaint with the Sheriff claiming ownership over the attached
property which was denied by the Court.

Corporation Z filed a separate case (Civil Case 7003-M) in RTC of Bulacan asserting its claim of ownership
over the attached properties and prayed for issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, which was
granted by the Court.

Corporation Z was declared as the owner of the disputed alcohol and was granted the injunctive relief.

Corporation X filed an application for Writ of Preliminary Injunction to annul and set aside the Order and
to dissolve the Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued pursuant to the said order and to prohibit the Judge
from taking cognizance of and assuming jurisdiction over Civil Case 7003-M.

Issue:
WN the case filed by Corporation Z, the third party, was proper.

Ruling:
Yes.

The law provides 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. However, this rule does not apply in cases where a third-party claimant is involved.

In this case, the separate and independent action was the correct remedy resorted to by Corporation Z
when it led the vindicatory action before the Bulacan Court.