ARIEL Q. LATAYAN, PETITIONER, VS. JUDGE VIRGINIA HOFILEÑA-EUROPA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 11, ELEVENTH JUDICIAL REGION AND PRYCE CORPORATION, INC., RESPONDENTS.

Latayan versus Hofileña-Europa

The Case

This is a special civil action brought by Ariel Q. Latayan against Judge Virginia Hofileña-Europa of Branch 11 of the Regional Trial Court of the Eleventh Judicial Region, and against Pryce Corporation, Incorporated. The petitioner asks the Supreme Court to restrain the trial court from proceeding with a civil case after that court refused to dismiss the complaint for the plaintiff's failure to appear at pre-trial. The case matters because it is a compact lesson on the strict requirements for a writ of preliminary injunction: the applicant must show a clear and existing right, and must prove that the acts to be enjoined violate that right and would cause irreparable injustice. It teaches that a general claim of entitlement, without more, will not move the Court to issue the writ.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a petition before the Supreme Court, seeking a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction against the trial court and Pryce Corporation, Incorporated, so that they would not act in any manner in the civil case pending below. The petition also sought to prevent the proceedings from rendering moot the legal questions raised in his petition for certiorari. In a Resolution dated 02 October 2014, the Court held the action on the prayer for injunctive relief in abeyance pending compliance with its directives: the petitioner was to pay the deficiency in docket fees of 180 pesos within five days from notice, and the private respondent was to file its Comment and to show cause why the injunctive relief should be granted, to which the petitioner could file a Reply. The petitioner paid the 180 pesos on 29 October 2014. The private respondent filed its Comment and Opposition on 13 November 2014, five days after the last day to comply, and the petitioner filed his Reply on 19 November 2014. The Court noted the compliance, admitted the Comment and Opposition despite the delay, and noted the Reply. With the pleadings submitted, the Court resolved the prayer for injunctive relief.

Facts

Pryce Corporation, Incorporated, as plaintiff, filed a civil complaint against the petitioner before the Regional Trial Court of Branch 11 of the Eleventh Judicial Region. During the proceedings, the plaintiff failed to appear at the pre-trial. On that ground, the petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint.

On 26 May 2014, the trial court issued an Order denying the petitioner's motion to dismiss. Aggrieved, the petitioner questioned that Order and asked the Supreme Court to restrain the trial court and the private respondent from acting in any manner in the civil case while the legal questions were being resolved.

The petitioner anchored his prayer for injunctive relief on the assertion that he was entitled to the reliefs he demanded during the pendency of the appealed case, and that without the writ the legal matters he raised would be rendered moot and academic. The Court found that the petitioner had not shown a clear right that the challenged Order violated, and that the urgency and the irreparable damage he sought to prevent were unclear and unproven.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the trial court and Pryce Corporation, Incorporated from proceeding with the civil case.
• Whether or not the petitioner established a clear and existing right that the challenged Order of the trial court violated.
• Whether or not the petitioner proved that the acts sought to be enjoined would cause irreparable injustice and would render the petition moot and academic.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3 of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction. — A preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established: (a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, or in requiring the performance of an act or acts either for a limited period or perpetually; (b) That the commission, continuance or non-performance of the act or acts complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or (c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual. (3a)

This provision supplies the grounds for the writ, and the Court measured the petitioner's prayer against each of them, finding that none was satisfied.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court denied the prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. It held that a writ of preliminary injunction is issued to preserve the status quo ante, upon an applicant's showing of two important requisite conditions: first, the right to be protected exists prima facie; and second, the acts sought to be enjoined are violative of that right. It must be proven that the violation sought to be prevented would cause an irreparable injustice. The writ is granted only to protect actual and existing substantial rights.

On the second issue, the Court found that the petitioner failed to establish a clear right that would be violated by the 26 May 2014 Order denying his motion to dismiss. It held that a general statement that an applicant is entitled to an injunctive writ pending the resolution of the case on the merits does not suffice to state a clear and unequivocal right. The petitioner's plea was for the Court to immediately restrain the proceedings below, which he claimed had become irregular after the trial court refused to dismiss the complaint. The Court answered that whether the petitioner is correct in his restatement of the procedural situation would still have to be resolved after the merits of his petition had been considered.

On the third issue, the Court held that it did not see how the present petition would become moot if the trial court continued to hear the case while the Court considered the interlocutory matter. If the petitioner is correct, the result would be the dismissal of the complaint, including all the proceedings done by the trial court past its questioned order. In this light, the urgency of the issuance of the writ was not effectively established, because the irreparable damage sought to be prevented was unclear and unproven.

Doctrine

A writ of preliminary injunction is issued to preserve the status quo ante, and it requires the applicant to show two conditions: that the right to be protected exists prima facie, and that the acts sought to be enjoined are violative of that right. The applicant must prove that the violation sought to be prevented would cause an irreparable injustice, and the writ is granted only to protect actual and existing substantial rights.

A general statement that the applicant is entitled to an injunctive writ pending resolution of the case on the merits does not suffice to state a clear and unequivocal right. The applicant must establish a clear and existing right, not a mere expectation of victory on the merits.

Where the relief ultimately sought would, if granted, undo all the proceedings conducted below, the urgency of the writ is not established, and the irreparable damage claimed is unclear and unproven. These rules flow directly from Section 3 of Rule 58, which requires that the applicant be entitled to the relief demanded, that the acts complained of would probably work injustice, or that they would violate the applicant's rights and tend to render the judgment ineffectual.

Disposition

The Court denied the petitioner's application for a writ of preliminary injunction, with the result that the trial court and Pryce Corporation, Incorporated were not restrained from proceeding with the civil case.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a writ of preliminary injunction protects only actual and existing substantial rights, and a general claim of entitlement on the merits is not a clear and unequivocal right. Examiners use this case to test the two requisite conditions for injunctive relief and the requirement of proving irreparable injustice.