MICHAEL CARIDAD, EDUARDO UBANDO, RAMON CARIDAD, LOURDES UBANDO, RONQUILLO CARIDAD, AND FRANCISCO DELA CRUZ, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, VS. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK AND SPOUSES MANUE…
CORALES, J.:
Meanwhile, in a verified Extremely Urgent Application for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction (Urgent Application) filed on December 26, 2013, plaintiffs-appellants manifested their receipt on December 5, 2013 of a Writ of Demolition and Notice to Vacate,2[2] both issued by the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1, Dagupan City, in Civil Case No. 16376 for ejectment (the ejectment case). Claiming irreparable damage and prejudice, plaintiffs-appellants prayed for this Court to enjoin the implementation of the Writ of Demolition until the final determination by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 42, Dagupan City of Civil Case No. 04-0402-D for declaration of nullity of sale and judgment; to order the suspension in the meantime of proceedings in Civil Case No. 16376; and to direct the return of the records herein for the continuation of proceedings in the court a quo.[3] Plaintiffs-appellants further stressed the urgency of their plight in a Reiteration of the Extremely Urgent Application for the Issuance of a TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction.[4]
In their Comment/Opposition, defendants-appellees Manuel and Eleanor L. Pablico (Spouses Pablico) countered the application for injunctive relief and argued their right to enjoy the fruits of their victory in the ejectment case.[5] For its part, defendant-appellee Philippine National Bank (PNB) stated that an amicable settlement between plaintiffs-appellants and Spouses Pablico had already rendered the Urgent Application moot and academic.[6]
Assuming arguendo that the Urgent Application remains viable for resolution, We deny the same. It is elementary that injunction requires, first and foremost, the showing of a clear and unmistakable right warranting such protection.[7] The mere assertion of grave or irreparable damage and prejudice, without proof of an actual existing right, shall not suffice. Furthermore, no court should interfere, by injunction or otherwise, with the ministerial duty to execute a final judgment. No exception has been shown to apply herein.[8] More importantly, this Court has no jurisdiction in the instant appeal to enjoin the orders or process of a lower court other than the court a quo. The judgment in the ejectment case has long been final and its execution is a matter of right in favor of the prevailing parties. The MTCC retains the ministerial duty to enforce its final judgment in accordance with the law and the rules.[9]
WHEREFORE, defendants-appellees’ Motions for Reconsideration, as well as plaintiffs-appellants’ Urgent Application and Reiteration, are hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Villon, J., Chairperson and Macalino, JJ., concur.
[1] See Motions for Reconsideration, rollo, pages 163-170 and 175-179.
[2] Ibid., pages 159-161 and 162, respectively.
[3] See Extremely Urgent Application for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction, ibid., pages 146-154.
[4] Ibid., pages 183-192.
[5] Ibid., pages 193-198.
[6] See Comment, ibid., pages 200-202.
[7] See Thunder Security v. National Food Authority, G.R. No. 182042. July 27, 2011.
[8] See Australian Professional v. Municipality of Padre Garcia, G.R. No. 183367. March 14, 2012.
[9] See Anama v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 187021. January 25, 2012.