JESUS D. BAYLON, JR., CORAZON D. BAYLON (MOTHER) AND CORAZON D. BAYLON (DAUGHTER), PETITIONERS, VS. HON. EMILY R. ALIÑO-GELUZ, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 255, …

Baylon versus Aliño-Geluz

The Case

This is Baylon versus Aliño-Geluz, an original petition filed directly with the Supreme Court by Corazon Baylon, her daughter of the same name, and Jesus Baylon, Junior. They ask the Court to restrain a regional trial court judge and a deputy sheriff from enforcing a writ of execution that would eject them from a house and lot in Las Piñas City. The case matters because it draws a sharp line between the main action for injunction and the provisional remedy of preliminary injunction, and because it reminds us that the Supreme Court cannot issue that provisional remedy when no main case is pending before it and no grave abuse of discretion is shown.

Procedural History

The petitioners first filed a complaint for annulment of an extrajudicial settlement, of sales, of a deed of mortgage, and for cancellation of titles, before the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, assailing the alleged fraudulent transfer of the property. Separately, the buyer, Ernesto Estrella, filed a complaint for ejectment and damages before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Las Piñas City. The Metropolitan Trial Court decided in his favor, and the Baylons appealed to the Regional Trial Court, paying the supersedeas bond but not the monthly compensation ordered. On motion, the Regional Trial Court ordered execution, and the writ issued. The Baylons then came straight to the Supreme Court by petition for injunction.

Facts

The property at Apacible Street, Philamlife Village, Las Piñas City was originally registered in the names of Rosemarie Baylon, Ma. Fatima Baylon, Jesus Baylon, Junior, and Corazon Baylon. Allegedly through fraud, Fatima mortgaged it to Labrador Credit Corporation for two million pesos. The loan went unpaid, the mortgage was foreclosed, and title passed to the corporation, which then sold the property to Ernesto Estrella.

On October 17, 2011, the two Corazon Baylons filed their complaint for annulment and reconveyance before the Regional Trial Court. Estrella, for his part, filed an ejectment case before the Metropolitan Trial Court based on his deed of absolute sale.

On August 30, 2012, the Metropolitan Trial Court ruled for Estrella, granting him physical possession, ordering the defendants to vacate, and requiring them to pay twenty thousand pesos a month as reasonable compensation from November 11, 2011 until they vacate, plus attorney's fees, appearance fees, and costs. The Baylons appealed to the Regional Trial Court and paid the supersedeas bond, but did not make the periodic monthly deposits. Estrella moved for execution. On February 8, 2013, the Regional Trial Court directed the issuance of a writ of execution. The Baylons moved for reconsideration, but on February 12, 2013 the writ issued, and a notice to vacate followed.

Issues

• Whether or not the Supreme Court may issue a writ of preliminary injunction in an original action for injunction where no main case is pending before it.
• Whether or not the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over an original action for injunction against a writ of execution issued by a regional trial court.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2 of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 2. Who may grant preliminary injunction. — A preliminary injunction may be granted by the court where the action or proceeding is pending.

This fixes the venue of the provisional remedy: only the court where the main action or proceeding is pending may grant it.

Section 7 of Rule 65 provides:

Section 7. Expediting proceedings; injunctive relief. — The court in which the petition 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.

This is the only other door through which the Court may grant injunctive relief, and it opens only in a petition for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that what was filed was an original action for preliminary injunction, a provisional and extraordinary remedy meant to preserve the status quo until the merits can be heard. But absent a main case, the Court cannot issue such a preliminary injunction, because the auxiliary remedy cannot exist except as part of or as an incident of an independent action or proceeding.

On the second issue, the Court held that an original action for injunction is outside its jurisdiction. The appellate court's jurisdiction to grant a writ of preliminary injunction is limited to actions or proceedings pending before it, or to a petition for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus under Section 7 of Rule 65. Here, the case from which the writ of execution issued was pending before the regional trial court, not the Supreme Court. Neither did the petition allege that the trial court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, so it could not be treated as a petition for certiorari or prohibition. For want of jurisdiction, the petition was dismissed outright.

Doctrine

A preliminary injunction is merely a provisional remedy. It cannot exist except as part of, or as an incident of, an independent action or proceeding. The main action for injunction seeks a final injunction, and must not be confused with the provisional remedy whose sole object is to preserve the status quo until the merits can be heard.

Under Section 2 of Rule 58, only the court where the action or proceeding is pending may grant a preliminary injunction. Under Section 7 of Rule 65, the court in which a petition for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus is filed may grant a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction for the preservation of the rights of the parties pending those proceedings. Absent a main case, or a petition that properly invokes certiorari or prohibition on a showing of grave abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court cannot issue the writ.

Disposition

The petition was denied for lack of jurisdiction, and the writ of execution stood.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a preliminary injunction cannot exist except as part of or as an incident of an independent action or proceeding, and only the court where that action is pending may grant it. Examiners use this case to test jurisdiction over injunction, the distinction between the main action and the provisional remedy, and the limits of injunctive relief under Rule 58 and Rule 65.