MUNICIPALITY OF DUMANJUG, CEBU, REPRESENTED BY MAYOR NELSON F. GARCIA, PETITIONER, VS. SPS. EDELYN & MILLARD FERNANDEZ, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME FLYOVER LUMBER & GENERAL ME…

Municipality of Dumanjug versus Fernandez

The Case

This is a special civil action in the Supreme Court. The Municipality of Dumanjug, Cebu, represented by its Mayor Nelson F. Garcia, filed a Petition for Certiorari with a prayer for a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction against spouses Edelyn and Millard Fernandez, who do business under the name Flyover Lumber and General Merchandise. The Municipality asked the Court to annul and nullify two orders of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 60, Barili, Cebu, and to restrain their enforcement. The case matters for two reasons. First, it teaches the procedural discipline the Supreme Court demands of every petition for certiorari, and of local governments suing in court. Second, it gives a clean statement of what makes an injury irreparable for purposes of injunctive relief.

Procedural History

The Municipality filed its Petition for Certiorari directly in the Supreme Court, with a prayer for a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction. It sought to annul and nullify two orders of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 60, Barili, Cebu, dated October 23, 2012 and November 25, 2013. The Municipality alleged that the respondent judge acted with disregard of the rule of law and of due process, and that his actuations were prejudicial to the public, particularly the people of Dumanjug, at whose expense Flyover Lumber would be enriched. The Supreme Court examined the petition and found it defective on several grounds, and dismissed it outright.

Facts

The Municipality of Dumanjug, through its Mayor, brought the petition to annul two orders of the Regional Trial Court in Barili, Cebu. The Municipality claimed that the respondent judge disregarded the rule of law and due process, and that his orders would enrich Flyover Lumber at the expense of the people of Dumanjug. It therefore asked the Supreme Court for a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction to stop the enforcement of those orders.

The petition, however, carried procedural defects. It did not state the material date showing when the Municipality's Motion for Reconsideration of the October 23, 2012 Order was filed before the trial court. The Municipality, a local government unit and juridical entity, did not submit a resolution of the Sangguniang Bayan or Municipal Council specifically authorizing Mayor Garcia to sign the verification and certification against non-forum shopping and to file the petition on its behalf. It also failed to attach copies of all pleadings and documents necessary for a thorough understanding of the petition, including the annexes to the complaint filed below.

Finally, the Municipality's counsel failed to indicate the necessary details of his notarial certificate. The Supreme Court noted these defects and dismissed the petition outright.

Issues

• Whether or not the Municipality is entitled to a writ of preliminary injunction, on the ground that it would suffer great and irreparable injury.
• Whether or not the petition for certiorari should be dismissed for failure to comply with the requirements governing petitions for certiorari, including the failure to state the date of the filing of the motion for reconsideration, the failure to submit the authorizing resolution of the Sangguniang Bayan, the failure to attach necessary pleadings and documents, and the defective notarial certificate of counsel.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3 of Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.

This is the provision the Court applied in dismissing the petition for the Municipality's failure to state the date of the filing of its motion for reconsideration and to attach the required pleadings and documents.

Section 2 of Rule 8 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides:

Section 2. Contents of the Concluding Part of the Notarial Certificate. The notarial certificate shall include the following: (a) the name of the notary public as exactly indicated in the commission; (b) the serial number of the commission of the notary public; (c) the words Notary Public and the province or city where the notary public is commissioned, the expiration date of the commission, the office address of the notary public; and (d) the roll of attorney's number, the professional tax receipt number and the place and date of issuance thereof, and the IBP membership number.

This is the provision the Court cited in finding the notarial certificate of the Municipality's counsel defective.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court denied the prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. It held that the Municipality would not suffer great and irreparable injury, because what was sought to be implemented was a collection of money and damages, which is a monetary judgment. Such a judgment can be clearly measured and is susceptible of mathematical computation. The Court recalled its ruling in Ermita versus Aldecoa-Delorino that an injury is irreparable if it is of such constant and frequent recurrence that no fair and reasonable redress can be had therefor in a court of law, or where there is no standard by which the amount can be measured with reasonable accuracy, that is, it is not susceptible of mathematical computation. It is considered irreparable injury when it cannot be adequately compensated in damages due to the nature of the injury itself or the nature of the right or property injured, or when there exists no certain pecuniary standard for the measurement of damages. A monetary judgment does not meet that standard.

On the second issue, the Court found several infirmities in the petition. First, the Municipality failed to indicate the material date showing when its Motion for Reconsideration of the October 23, 2012 Order was filed before the trial court, in violation of Section 3 of Rule 46. Second, the Municipality, a local government unit and juridical entity, failed to submit the resolution of the Sangguniang Bayan or Municipal Council specifically authorizing Mayor Garcia to sign the verification and certification against non-forum shopping and to file the petition on its behalf. Third, it failed to attach copies of all pleadings and documents necessary for a thorough understanding and resolution of the petition, such as the annexes to the complaint filed below. Fourth, its counsel failed to indicate the necessary details of his notarial certificate, namely the serial number of his commission, his office address, and the place of issuance of his professional tax receipt, in violation of Section 2 of Rule 8 of the Rules of Notarial Practice. The Court held that these defects warranted an outright dismissal of the petition.

Doctrine

First, an injury is irreparable, for purposes of a writ of preliminary injunction, only if it is of such constant and frequent recurrence that no fair and reasonable redress can be had therefor in a court of law, or where there is no standard by which the amount can be measured with reasonable accuracy. A monetary judgment is susceptible of mathematical computation and is therefore not an irreparable injury.

Second, the requirements for a petition for certiorari are mandatory. Under Section 3 of Rule 46, the failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements is a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.

Third, a local government unit is a juridical entity. When it files a petition through its mayor, it must submit a resolution of the Sangguniang Bayan or Municipal Council specifically authorizing the mayor to sign the verification and certification against non-forum shopping and to file the petition on its behalf.

Fourth, the notarial certificate of counsel must comply with Section 2 of Rule 8 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, including the serial number of the notary public's commission, the office address of the notary public, and the place of issuance of the professional tax receipt.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and the Municipality of Dumanjug lost.

Remember This

A monetary judgment is not an irreparable injury, because it can be measured and is susceptible of mathematical computation. Examiners like to use this case on the requisites for a writ of preliminary injunction, and on the mandatory requirements for a petition for certiorari, including the authority of a local government unit to sue through its mayor.