Australian Professional Realty v. Municipality of Padre Garcia
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In 1993, a fire destroyed the public market of the Municipality of Padre Garcia, Batangas. The Municipality, through its then Mayor Eugenio Gutierrez, invited Australian Professional Realty, Inc. (APRI) to rebuild the market and construct a shopping center. On January 19, 1995, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was executed, wherein APRI undertook to construct a shopping complex on a 5,000-square-meter area in exchange for the exclusive right to operate, manage, and lease stall spaces for 25 years. Procedural History: In May 1995, Victor Reyes was elected municipal mayor. On February 6, 2003, the Municipality, through Mayor Reyes, filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of the MOA with Damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Summons was issued but returned unserved as petitioners had moved. The RTC granted the Municipality's motion for service by publication and subsequently declared petitioners in default on November 24, 2003. On October 6, 2004, the RTC rendered a Decision declaring the MOA null and void for being contrary to law and public policy (R.A. 6957 and R.A. 7718), ordering petitioners to pay ₱5,000,000.00 in damages, and declaring the structures within the unfinished shopping center forfeited in favor of the Municipality. No appeal was filed, and the RTC granted the Municipality's Motion for Execution of Judgment, issuing a Writ of Execution on July 15, 2005. The Petition: Petitioners filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment on July 18, 2005, which was denied by the RTC on June 15, 2006, and their subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was also denied on February 14, 2008. Petitioners then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the Court of Appeals (CA) (CA-G.R. SP No. 102540) on February 28, 2008. On March 7, 2008, they filed a Motion for the Issuance of a Status Quo Order and Motion for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction. The CA denied this motion on March 26, 2008, finding no extreme urgency or clear and irreparable injury. The CA denied their Motion for Reconsideration on June 17, 2008. Petitioners then filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners’ Motion for the Issuance of Status Quo Order and Motion for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction. Whether a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 is the proper remedy to question the denial of a motion for injunctive relief.
Ruling
The Petition is denied. The Court of Appeals Resolutions dated March 26, 2008, and June 17, 2008, in CA-G.R. SP No. 102540 are affirmed. The Court of Appeals is directed to proceed with dispatch to dispose of the case before it.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy (Issue 2): The Court held that a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 is an improper remedy to question the denial of a motion for injunctive relief. Such denial constitutes an interlocutory order, which is not appealable under Section 1(c) of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. The proper remedy is a Petition for Certiorari and/or Prohibition under Rule 65. While the Court could dismiss the petition outright, it chose to treat the instant petition as if it were filed under Rule 65 to address the substantive issues. On grave abuse of discretion by the CA (Issue 1): The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA in denying the motion for injunctive relief. The CA correctly assessed that the matter was not of extreme urgency and that there was no clear and irreparable injury that would be suffered by the petitioners if the prayer for injunctive relief was not granted. The CA's denial was based on established jurisprudence requiring the existence of a clear and unmistakable right and an urgent and paramount necessity to prevent serious damage. The Court emphasized that to be entitled to injunctive relief, petitioners must show a clear and unmistakable right to be protected. In this case, petitioners relied on their alleged right to the faithful execution of the MOA. However, their rights under the MOA had already been declared inferior or inexistent by the RTC in a judgment that had become final and executory. Since their rights were disputed and had been adversely ruled upon by the RTC, they failed to establish a clear legal right that would warrant the issuance of an injunction. The general rule is that no court should interfere by injunction to restrain the execution of a final and executory judgment, absent specific exceptions like supervening events rendering execution inequitable. The Court found that the alleged injuries claimed by petitioners were capable of pecuniary estimation and thus not irreparable. The claimed losses of ₱30,000,000 in investments, ₱100,000 monthly rental income, and potential losses from employee termination and suits by leaseholders are all quantifiable. Damages that are easily subject to mathematical computation and fully compensable by monetary award do not warrant the extraordinary remedy of preliminary injunction. The allegations of loss of employment and potential suits were considered speculative without proof.
Main Doctrine
A Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 is an improper remedy to question the denial of an application for injunctive relief, as such denial constitutes an interlocutory order. The proper remedy is a Petition for Certiorari and/or Prohibition under Rule 65. Furthermore, injunctive relief will not be granted absent a clear and unmistakable right to be protected and an urgent and paramount necessity to prevent serious and irreparable damage, especially when the alleged injury is capable of pecuniary estimation.