Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 62 views

    Australian Professional v. Padre Garcia

    Uploaded by

    Hans Lazaro
    The Court denied the petitioners' motion for a status quo order and temporary restraining order, finding: (1) The petitioners did not demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought, as their rights under the memorandum of agreement had already been declared invalid in a previous court case. (2) To be entitled to injunctive relief, the petitioners must show urgent necessity to prevent serious and irreparable damage, which they failed to prove. (3) Where a party's right or title is doubtful or disputed, as was the case here, injunction is not a proper remedy. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the CA's denial of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Australian Professional v. Padre Garcia

    Uploaded by

    Hans Lazaro
    62 views4 pages
    The Court denied the petitioners' motion for a status quo order and temporary restraining order, finding: (1) The petitioners did not demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought, as their rights under the memorandum of agreement had already been declared invalid in a previous court case. (2) To be entitled to injunctive relief, the petitioners must show urgent necessity to prevent serious and irreparable damage, which they failed to prove. (3) Where a party's right or title is doubtful or disputed, as was the case here, injunction is not a proper remedy. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the CA's denial of

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Court denied the petitioners' motion for a status quo order and temporary restraining order, finding: (1) The petitioners did not demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought, as their rights under the memorandum of agreement had already been declared invalid in a previous court case. (2) To be entitled to injunctive relief, the petitioners must show urgent necessity to prevent serious and irreparable damage, which they failed to prove. (3) Where a party's right or title is doubtful or disputed, as was the case here, injunction is not a proper remedy. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the CA's denial of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    62 views4 pages

    Australian Professional v. Padre Garcia

    Uploaded by

    Hans Lazaro
    The Court denied the petitioners' motion for a status quo order and temporary restraining order, finding: (1) The petitioners did not demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought, as their rights under the memorandum of agreement had already been declared invalid in a previous court case. (2) To be entitled to injunctive relief, the petitioners must show urgent necessity to prevent serious and irreparable damage, which they failed to prove. (3) Where a party's right or title is doubtful or disputed, as was the case here, injunction is not a proper remedy. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the CA's denial of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 4

    Australian Professional Realty v.

    (b)The respondents are hereby ordered to


    Municipality of Padre Garcia Batangas pay the amount of FIVE MILLION PESOS
    (2012) (P5,000,000.00) in favor of the plaintiff
    for damages caused to the latter;
    Sereno, J. (c) The structures found within the
    unfinished PADRE GARCIA SHOPPING
    I. FACTS CENTER are hereby declared forfeited in
    favor of the Municipality of Padre Garcia.
    In 1993, a fire razed to the ground the old
    public market of respondent Municipality of
    Padre Garcia, Batangas. The municipal There having been no timely appeal made,
    government, through its then Municipal respondent filed a Motion for Execution of
    Mayor Eugenio Gutierrez, invited petitioner Judgment, which was granted by the RTC.
    Australian Professional Realty, Inc. (APRI) A Writ of Execution was subsequently
    to rebuild the public market and construct issued.
    a shopping center.
    After learning of the adverse judgment,
    On 19 January 1995, a Memorandum of petitioners filed a Petition for Relief from
    Agreement (MOA) was executed Judgment. This Petition was denied by the
    between petitioner APRI and respondent, RTC. MR denied too.
    represented by Mayor Gutierrez and the
    members of the Sangguniang Bayan. Petitioners later filed before the CA a
    Under the MOA, APRI undertook to Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition dated
    construct a shopping complex in the 5,000- 28 February 2008. On 7 March 2008,
    square-meter area. In return, APRI petitioners filed before the CA a Motion for
    acquired the exclusive right to operate, the Issuance of Status Quo Order and
    manage, and lease stall spaces for a period Motion for Issuance of Temporary
    of 25 years. Restraining Order and/or Writ of
    Preliminary Injunction. The motion
    In May 1995, Victor Reyes was elected as prayed for an order to restrain the RTC
    municipal mayor of respondent. On 6 from “further proceeding and issuing any
    February 2003, respondent, through Mayor further Order, Resolution, Writ of
    Reyes, initiated a Complaint for Declaration Execution, and any other court processes”.
    of Nullity of Memorandum of Agreement
    with Damages before the Regional Trial CA denied the petitioner’s motion,
    Court (RTC) of Rosario. finding that the matter is not of
    extreme urgency and that there is no
    The RTC issued summons to petitioners, clear and irreparable injury that would
    requiring them to file their Answer to the be suffered by the petitioners if the prayer
    Complaint. However, the summons was for the issuance of a Status Quo Order,
    returned unserved, as petitioners were no Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or
    longer holding office in the given address. Writ of Preliminary Injunction is not
    RTC issued an Order declaring petitioners granted. MR denied.
    in default and allowing respondent to
    present evidence ex parte. Petitioners claim that the amount of APRI’s
    investment in the Padre Garcia Shopping
    RTC rendered a decision: Center is estimated at PHP 30,000,000, the
    entirety of which the RTC declared forfeited
    (a) The Memorandum of Agreement is
    to respondent without just compensation.
    hereby declared null and void for being
    At the time of the filing of the Petition, APRI
    contrary to law and public policy,
    particularly R.A. 6957 and R.A. 7718; had 47 existing tenants and lessees and
    was deriving an average monthly rental demanded.
    income of PHP 100,000.
    Essential to granting the injunctive relief is
    Petitioners further allege that respondent
    the existence of an urgent necessity
    did not exercise reasonable diligence in
    for the writ in order to prevent serious
    inquiring into the former’s address in the
    damage. A TRO is issued only if the matter
    case before the RTC. The Process Server
    is of such extreme urgency that grave
    Return, with respect to the unserved
    injustice and irreparable injury would arise
    summons, did not indicate the impossibility
    unless it is issued immediately.
    of a service of summons within a
    reasonable time, the efforts exerted to Under Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rule of
    locate APRI, or any inquiry as to the Court, a TRO may be issued only if it
    whereabouts of the said petitioner. appears from the facts shown by affidavits
    or by the verified application that great or
    The Court required respondent to file its
    irreparable injury would be inflicted on the
    Comment.
    applicant before the writ of preliminary
    Respondent further argues that it is now in injunction could be heard.
    possession of the contracts that the lessees
    Thus, to be entitled to the injunctive writ,
    of the Padre Garcia Shopping Center
    petitioners must show that:
    executed with APRI. Thus, there are
    "actions that militate against the (1) there exists a clear and
    preservation of the present state of unmistakable right to be protected;
    things".
    (2) this right is directly threatened by
    an act sought to be enjoined;

    II. ISSUE (3) the invasion of the right is


    material and substantial; and
    WON CA committed grave abuse of
    discretion in denying petitioners' Motion for (4) there is an urgent and paramount
    the Issuance of Status Quo Order and necessity for the writ to prevent
    Motion for Issuance of Temporary serious and irreparable damage
    Restraining Order and/or Writ of
    Preliminary Injunction – NO
    1.No clear legal right

    A clear legal right means one clearly


    III. RATIO
    founded in or granted by law or is
    enforceable as a matter of law.

    1.No grave abuse of discretion can be In the absence of a clear legal right, the
    imputed to the CA. issuance of the writ constitutes grave
    abuse of discretion. The possibility of
    A writ of preliminary injunction and a TRO
    irreparable damage without proof of an
    are injunctive reliefs and preservative
    actual existing right is not a ground for
    remedies for the protection of substantive
    injunction.
    rights and interests. An application for the
    issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction Here, petitioners rely on their alleged right
    and/or TRO may be granted upon the filing to the full and faithful execution of the
    of a verified application showing facts MOA.
    entitling the applicant to the relief
    Their rights under the MOA have already prior notice to the party or person sought to be
    been declared inferior or inexistent in enjoined. If it shall appear from facts shown by
    affidavits or by the verified application that
    relation to respondent in the RTC case,
    great or irreparable injury would result to the
    under a judgment that has become final applicant before the matter can be heard on
    and executory. Where the complainant's notice, the court to which the application for
    right or title is doubtful or disputed, preliminary injunction was made, may issue a
    injunction is not proper. temporary restraining order to be effective only
    for a period of twenty (20) days from service on
    The general rule is that after a judgment the party or person sought to be enjoined,
    except as herein provided. Within the said
    has gained finality, it becomes the
    twenty-day period, the court must order said
    ministerial duty of the court to order its party or person to show cause, at a specified
    execution. No court should interfere, by time and place, why the injunction should not
    injunction or otherwise, to restrain such be granted, determine within the same period
    execution. whether or not the preliminary injunction shall
    be granted, and accordingly issue the
    2. No irreparable injury corresponding order. (Bar Matter No. 803, 17
    February 1998)
    Damages are irreparable where there is no
    standard by which their amount could be However, and subject to the provisions of the
    measured with reasonable accuracy. preceding sections, if the matter is of extreme
    urgency and the applicant will suffer grave
    Here, petitioners have alleged that the loss injustice and irreparable injury, the executive
    of the public market entails costs of about judge of a multiple-sala court or the presiding
    judge of a single sala court may issue ex parte a
    PHP 30,000,000 in investments, PHP
    temporary restraining order effective for only
    100,000 monthly revenue in rentals, and seventy-two (72) hours from issuance but he
    amounts as yet unquantified but not shall immediately comply with the provisions of
    unquantifiable in terms of the alleged loss the next preceding section as to service of
    of jobs of APRI's employees and potential summons and the documents to be served
    therewith. Thereafter, within the aforesaid
    suits that may be filed by the leaseholders
    seventy-two (72) hours, the judge before whom
    of the public market for breach of contract. the case is pending shall conduct a summary
    hearing to determine whether the temporary
    Clearly, the injuries alleged by restraining order shall be extended until the
    petitioners are capable of pecuniary application for preliminary injunction can be
    estimation. Any loss petitioners may heard. In no case shall the total period of
    suffer is easily subject to mathematical effectivity of the temporary restraining order
    exceed twenty (20) days, including the original
    computation and, if proven, is fully
    seventy-two hours provided herein.
    compensable by damages. Thus, a
    preliminary injunction is not warranted. In the event that the application for preliminary
    injunction is denied or not resolved within the
    said period, the temporary restraining order is
    deemed, automatically vacated. The effectivity
    IV. DISPOSITIVE
    of a temporary restraining order is not
    PETITION IS DENIED. CA DECISION extendible without need of any judicial
    declaration to that effect and no court shall have
    AFFIRMED. authority to extend or renew the same on the
    same ground for which it was issued.
    V. NOTES
    However, if issued by the Court of Appeals or a
    Rule 58 member thereof, the temporary restraining
    order shall be effective for sixty (60) days from
    Section 5. Preliminary injunction not granted service on the party or person sought to be
    without notice; exception. — No preliminary enjoined. A restraining, order issued by the
    injunction shall be granted without hearing and
    Supreme Court or a member thereof shall be
    effective until further orders. (5a)

    You might also like