ASAHA M. ADIN, PETITIONERS, VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. XI, ZAMBOANGA CITY RESPONDENTS.
SINGH, J.:
a. Letter[1] dated 9 October 2014 filed by the respondent Civil Service Commission (CSC);
b. Compliance with Reply[2 ]dated 14 October 2014 filed by petitioner Asaha M. Adin (Adin);
c. CA-CMIS Report[3] dated 3 December 2014.
Anent petitioner’s prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order, this Court perceives no reason to grant either relief.
A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a party or a court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts. It may also require the performance of a particular act or acts, in which case it shall be known as a preliminary mandatory injunction. To justify the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, it must be shown that: (1) the complainant has a clear legal right; (2) such right has been violated and the invasion by the other party is material and substantial; and (3) there is an urgent and permanent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. An injunction will not issue to protect a right not in esse, or a right which is merely contingent and may never arise since, to be protected by injunction, the alleged right must be clearly founded on or granted by law or is enforceable as a matter of law.[4]
From the foregoing, it appears that before a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order may be issued, a clear showing must be made that there exists a right to be protected and the acts against which the writ is to be directed are violative of an established right.[5]
Petitioner Adin contends that a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order is necessary to protect her right because the execution of Decision No. 12-0013 dated 9 February 2012 of the respondent CSC will result to her dismissal from the service.
To this Court, however, petitioner Adin’s right to injunctive relief has not been clearly demonstrated. Let it not be forgotten that public office is not a property right.[6] Besides, if her petition is ultimately found meritorious, even if the dismissal has been effected, petitioner Adin may still be ordered reinstated and restored to her position.
All told, no pressing necessity exists in the instant case to warrant the issuance of the injunctive relief prayed for.
ACCORDINGLY, the prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order is hereby DENIED. The parties are directed to submit their respective memoranda within fifteen (15) days from notice, after lapse of which the petition shall be submitted for decision, with or without such memoranda.
SO ORDERED.
Borja, J., Ch., and Badelles, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, p. 160.
[2] Rollo, pp. 162-165.
[3] Rollo, Front cover.
[4] Heirs of Melencio Yu and Talinanap Matualaga v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 182371, 4 September 2013.
[5] China Banking Corporation v. Spouse Sharry Cririaco and Esther Ciriaco, G.R. No. 170083, 11 July 2012.
[6] Coalition of Asociations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines, Inc., v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 206844-45, 23 July 2013.