EN BANC
|
REPUBLIC OF THE
Petitioner, - versus - SANDIGANBAYAN
(FIRST DIVISION), EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., AGRICULTURAL CONSULTANCY
SERVICES, INC., ARCHIPELAGO REALTY CORP., BALENTE RANCH, INC., BLACK STALLON
RANCH, INC., CHRISTENSEN PLANTATION COMPANY, DISCOVERY REALTY CORP., DREAM
PASTURES, INC., ECHO RANCH, INC., FAR EAST RANCH, INC., FILSOV SHIPPING
COMPANY, INC., FIRST UNITED TRANSPORT, INC., HABAGAT REALTY DEVELOPMENT,
INC., KALAWAKAN RESORTS, INC., KAUNLARAN AGRICULTURAL CORP., LABAYUG AIR
TERMINALS, INC., LANDAIR INTERNATIONAL MARKETING CORP., LHL CATTLE
CORPORATION, LUCENA OIL FACTORY, INC., MEADOW LARK PLANTATIONS, INC.,
METROPLEX COMMODITIES, INC., MISTY MOUNTAIN AGRICULTURAL CORP., NORTHEAST
CONTRACT TRADERS, INC., NORTHERN CARRIERS CORPORATION, OCEANSIDE MARITIME
ENTERPRISES, INC., ORO VERDE
SERVICES, INC., PASTORAL FARMS, INC.,
PCY OIL MANUFACTURING CORP., PHILIPPINE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., PRIMAVERA
FARMS, INC., PUNONG-BAYAN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP., PURA ELECTRIC COMPANY
INC., RADIO AUDIENCE DEVELOPERS INTEGRATED ORGANIZATION, INC., RADYO PILIPINO
CORPORATION, RANCHO GRANDE, INC.,
REDDEE DEVELOPERS, INC., SAN ESTEBAN DEVELOPMENT CORP., SILVER LEAF
PLANTATIONS, INC., SOUTHERN SERVICE TRADERS, INC., SOUTHERN STAR CATTLE
CORP., SPADE ONE RESORTS CORP., UNEXPLORED LAND DEVELOPERS, INC., VERDANT
PLANTATATIONS, INC., VESTA AGRICULTURAL CORP. AND WINGS RESORTS CORPORATION, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 166859 Present: PANGANIBAN, C.J., PUNO, QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CARPIO
MORALES, CALLEJO,
SR., AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
GARCIA,
and VELASCO,
JR., JJ. Promulgated: June 26, 2006 |
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
For
resolution is the Urgent Motion for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order
and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction which was filed by petitioner, Republic
of the Philippines, during the pendency of its Petition for Certiorari before
this Court challenging the denial by public respondent, the Sandiganbayan, of
its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in Civil Case No. 0033-F (the civil
case).
In support of its present urgent
motion, petitioner pleads that the issue it raised in its Petition for
Certiorari — whether public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in
denying its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment — must first be resolved, as a
continuation of the proceedings in the civil case by public respondent might be
rendered unnecessary in the event that its Petition before this Court is resolved
in its favor.
The
mere elevation of an interlocutory matter to this Court through a petition for Certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, like in the present case, does not by
itself merit a suspension of the proceedings before a public respondent, unless
a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction has been
issued against the public respondent. Rule
65, Section 7 of the Rules of Court so provides:
SECTION
7. Expediting proceedings; injunctive
relief. — The court in which the petition [for Certiorari, Prohibition and
Mandamus] 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 a
writ of preliminary injunction has been issued against the public respondent
from further proceeding in the case. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The
burden is thus on the petitioner in a petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and
Mandamus to show that there is a meritorious ground for the issuance of a
temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction for the purpose
of suspending the proceedings before the public respondent.[1] Essential for granting injunctive relief is
the
existence of an urgent necessity for the writ in order to prevent serious
damage.[2]
The
Court finds that petitioner has failed to discharge the burden. The ground on which it bases its urgent motion
is the alleged futility of proceeding with the trial of the case. This assertion, however, is speculative, anchored on the mere supposition that the petition
would be decided in its favor.
There
is thus, in this case, a marked absence of any urgent necessity for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction.
It
is gathered though that even prior to the filing of the instant motion, public
respondent suspended the proceedings in the civil case, the absence of any
temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction from this Court
notwithstanding. Thus, petitioner brought to this Court’s
attention private respondents’ insistence to have the civil case set for trial
by public respondent, citing private respondents’
filing of a “Motion Reiterating Motion to Set Case for Trial” dated June 27,
2005, “Second Motion Reiterating Motion to Set Case for Trial” dated October
26, 2005, and “Manifestation and Motion Reiterating Motion to Set Case for
Trial” dated December 8, 2005.[3]
The earlier quoted 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.[4]
There are of course instances where even
if there is no writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order
issued by a higher court, it would be proper for a lower court or court of
origin to suspend its proceedings on the precept of judicial courtesy. As
this Court explained in Eternal Gardens Memorial Park v. Court of Appeals:[5]
Although this Court did not issue
any restraining order against the Intermediate Appellate Court to prevent it
from taking any action with regard to its resolutions respectively granting
respondents' motion to expunge from the records the petitioner's motion to
dismiss and denying the latter's motion to reconsider such order, upon learning
of the petition, the appellate court should have refrained from ruling thereon
because its jurisdiction was necessarily limited upon the filing of a petition
for certiorari with this Court questioning the propriety of the issuance of the
above-mentioned resolutions. Due respect for the Supreme Court and practical
and ethical considerations should have prompted the appellate court to wait
for the final determination of the petition before taking cognizance of the
case and trying to render moot exactly what was before this court x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
A reading of Eternal Gardens
Memorial Park shows that the appellate court’s failure to observe judicial
courtesy which was frowned upon by this Court lay in its recall of its (the
appellate court’s) Orders expunging from the records the Motion to Dismiss
filed by the therein petitioner, which Orders were the orders being
questioned before this Court via a petition for Certiorari and Mandamus. Such act of the appellate court tended to render
moot and academic the said petition. No parity of circumstances obtains in the
present case, however, where merely setting the case for trial would not have
the effect of rendering the present petition moot.
This Court explained, however, that the
rule on "judicial courtesy" applies where “there is a strong
probability that the issues before the higher court would be rendered moot
and moribund as a result of the continuation of the proceedings in the lower court
[or court of origin]”.[6]
A final word. This Court takes notice that in most cases
where its interlocutory orders are challenged before this Court, public
respondent, Sandiganbayan, suspends proceedings in the cases in which these
assailed interlocutory orders are issued despite the non-issuance by this Court
of a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction and the
absence of a strong probability that the issues raised before this Court would
be rendered moot by a continuation of the proceedings before it
(Sandiganbayan).
WHEREFORE,
the URGENT MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR WRIT OF
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION filed by
The SANDIGANBAYAN is, however, ORDERED,
in light of the foregoing discussion, to continue the proceedings in Civil
Case No. 0033-F, as well as in all other cases where its interlocutory
orders are on challenge before this Court but no Temporary Restraining Order or
Writ of Preliminary Injunction has been issued and there is no strong
probability that the issues raised before this Court would be rendered moot and
moribund.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ARTEMIO V.
PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
|
REYNATO S. PUNO Associate Justice CONSUELO YNARES- Associate Justice |
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
|
MINITA
V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
CANCIO
C. GARCIA
Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J.
VELASCO, JR.
Associate
Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to
Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the
conclusions in the above Resolution were reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
ARTEMIO
V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1] Tayag v. Lacson, G.R. No. 134971,
[2] Ibid.
[3] Urgent Motion for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction, p. 11.
[4] Spouses Diaz v. Diaz, 387 Phil. 314, 335 (2000).
[5] G.R. No. L-50054.
[6] Go v. Abrogar, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1759. February 27, 2003, 398 SCRA 166, 171.