11/22/2015

G.R.No.155374

SECONDDIVISION

DR.ANTONIOC.SANTOS,G.R.No.155374
Petitioner,
Present:
QUISUMBING,J.,
Chairperson,
versusCARPIO,
CARPIOMORALES,
TINGA,and
VELASCO,JR.,JJ.

COURTOFAPPEALS,Promulgated:
EMMANUELB.JUAN,and
CARMELITAJUANDELOSSANTOS,
Respondents.November20,2007

xx

RESOLUTION

CARPIO,J.:

This case originated from an action for Injunction with Damages with prayer for the
issuanceofapreliminaryinjunctionortemporaryrestrainingorderfiledbyEmmanuelB.
Juan and Carmelita Juan Delos Santos (respondents) against Dr. Antonio C. Santos
(petitioner) and Rolando Lim (Lim), Officer In Charge of the City Engineers Office of
Valenzuela City. Respondents alleged that they are the registered owners of a parcel of
land located in Barangay Ugong, Valenzuela City. They developed a passage over the
land leading to Barangay Que Grande Street and allowed adjoining property owners,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/155374.htm

1/8

11/22/2015

G.R.No.155374

includingpetitioner,tousethepassage.InMarch1999,respondentsdecidedtoconstruct
commercial buildings on the land. Respondents fenced the land and closed the passage.
However, respondents opened another passage on another side of their land. The new
passagealsoleadstothesamebarangayroad.

In May 1999, petitioner, with the help of armed men, demolished the concrete fence
blockingtheoldpassage.Respondentsallegedthatthedemolitionwasdonewithoutany
courtorderbutwiththesupportofLim.

[1]
InanOrderdated24May1999, Judge Floro P. Alejo (Judge Alejo) of the Regional
Trial Court of Valenzuela City, Branch 172 (trial court), issued an order setting for
hearingtheissuanceofatemporaryrestrainingorderon27May1999.On27May1999,
thetrialcourtissuedanOrder(27May1999Order),asfollows:

When the plaintiffs prayer in the complaint for the issuance of a temporary restraining
order was called for hearing this morning, the parties, upon suggestion of the Court,
agreed to submit in connection with said incident their respective position papers
attachingtheretotheaffidavitsoftheirrespectivewitnessesandwhateverdocumentsthey
maywishtosubmitasevidenceinsupportoftheirrespectivecontentionswithinfive(5)
days from today, after which the incident of temporary retraining order shall be
consideredsubmittedforresolution.

[2]

SOORDERED.

On9June1999,thetrialcourtissuedanotherOrder(9June1999Order),thus:

For resolution is the prayer in the complaint for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunctionrestrainingthedefendantsfromenteringorpassingonthepropertydescribedin
T.C.T. No. V52589 and from interfering with any improvement being constructed by
plaintiffs.

xxxx

WHEREFORE,uponthepostingbytheplaintiffsofabondintheamountofP50,000.00
to the effect that the plaintiffs will pay the defendants all the damages which they may
sustainbyreasonoftheinjunctioniftheCourtshouldfinallydecidethattheplaintiffsare
notentitledthereto,letthewritofpreliminaryinjunctionprayedforbeissuedaccordingly.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/155374.htm

2/8

11/22/2015

G.R.No.155374

[3]

SOORDERED.

[4]
On14June1999,thetrialcourtissuedawritofpreliminaryinjunction. Petitionerfiled
[5]
anUrgentMotionforReconsideration.

[6]
InanOrder dated15June1999,thetrialcourtsetanocularinspectionoftheproperty
and held in abeyance petitioners Urgent Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioner filed a
motionfortheinhibitionofJudgeAlejoonthegroundthatheutteredastatementthathe
[7]
couldnotreversehimselfonhis9June1999Order. Thetrialcourtdeniedthemotion
[8]
forinhibitioninitsOrderdated23June1999(23June1999Order).

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals,
docketed as CAG.R. SP No. 53627, assailing the 9 June 1999 Order, the writ of
preliminaryinjunction,andthe23June1999Orderissuedbythetrialcourt.

[9]
Inits23April2002Decision, theCourtofAppealsdeniedthepetitionandaffirmedthe
9June1999and23June1999Ordersofthetrialcourt.

TheCourtofAppealsruledthatthegrantordenialofaninjunctionrestsuponthesound
discretionofthetrialcourt.TheCourtofAppealsruledthatJudgeAlejodidnotcommit
grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction. The Court of
Appeals did not agree with petitioner that the writ of preliminary injunction was issued
withoutahearing.Ahearingwasseton27May1999duringwhichthepartiesagreedto
submit their position papers. The Court of Appeals also ruled that the petition was
prematurelyfiledbecausepetitionersUrgentMotionforReconsiderationhadnotyetbeen
acteduponbythetrialcourt.TheCourtofAppealsruledthatpetitionerfailedtoshowthat
thecasefallsundertheexceptionalcircumstanceswhereapetitionforcertiorarimaybe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/155374.htm

3/8

11/22/2015

G.R.No.155374

filedevenwithoutfilingamotionforreconsideration.

[10]
Petitionerfiledamotionforreconsideration.Inits26September2002Resolution,
the
CourtofAppealsdeniedpetitionersmotionforreconsideration.

[11]
PetitionercametothisCourtviaapetitionforreview,
raisingthefollowingissues:

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the trial court did not
commitgraveabuseofdiscretioninissuingthe9June1999Order,thewrit
ofpreliminaryinjunction,andthe23June1999Orderand

2.WhethertheCourtofAppealserredinrulingthatthepetitionforcertiorari
wasprematurelyfiled.

In its 23 June 1999 Order, the trial court denied petitioners motion for the inhibition of
JudgeAlejo.PetitionerraisesasoneoftheissuestheallegederrorcommittedbytheCourt
of Appeals in affirming the trial courts 23 June 1999 Order. However, in his
Memorandum,petitionerfailedtopresentanyargumenttoshowthattheCourtofAppeals
committedareversibleerrorinaffirmingthe23June1999Order.

[12]
This Courts 22 May 2004 Resolution
is clear: the memorandum of the party shall
contain a clear and concise presentation of the argument in support of each issue. For
petitioners failure to present any argument on this issue, this Court will not rule on the
meritofthedenialofpetitionersmotionforinhibitionascontainedinthetrialcourts 23
June1999Order.

PetitionerallegesthattheCourtofAppealserredinrulingthatthepetitionforcertiorari
wasprematurelyfiled.Petitioneradmitsthathefiledthepetitionforcertioraribeforethe
CourtofAppealswhilehisUrgentMotionforReconsiderationbeforethetrialcourtwas
stillpending. However, petitioner claims that the urgent necessity of resolving the issue
justifiesthefilingofthepetitionforcertiorari.Petitionerarguesthatrespondentscloseda
public road. At the time of the closure, petitioner was constructing his house and the
deliverytrucksandthelaborerscouldnotpassthroughthestreet.Petitionerallegesthatit
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/155374.htm

4/8

11/22/2015

G.R.No.155374

wouldbefatalforhimtowaitfortheresolutionofhisUrgentMotionforReconsideration.
Petitioner alleges that the resolution of his Urgent Motion for Reconsideration is not
forthcoming,giventheactuationofJudgeAlejo.

InaResolutiondated14February2007,werequiredthepartiestoinformtheCourtofthe
status of petitioners Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and to furnish the Court of any
order or resolution issued by the trial court on the matter. In their Compliance with
[13]
Manifestation dated 8 March 2007,
respondents informed the Court that they could
not produce any document, resolution, or order on the matter because the trial court
forwardedtherecordsofthecasetothisCourt.Respondents manifested that the Urgent
MotionforReconsiderationwasstillunresolvedwhenCAG.R.SPNo.53627wasfiled
[14]
beforetheCourtofAppeals. In his Compliance with Manifestation
dated 14 March
2007,petitionerinformedtheCourtthathehasnotreceivedanyorderoractionofthetrial
courtonhisUrgentMotionforReconsiderationuptothefilingofsaidCompliancewith
Manifestation.

Thegeneralruleisthatthefilingofamotionforreconsiderationisindispensablebeforea
partycanresorttothespecialcivilactionforcertioraritoaffordthecourtortribunalthe
[15]
opportunity to correct its error, if any.
While this rule is subject to exceptions,
petitioner fails to show that this case falls under any of the exceptions. Besides, in this
case, petitioner filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration but, without waiting for its
resolution,filedapetitionforcertioraribeforetheCourtofAppeals.Petitionerclaimsthat
theresolutionofhisUrgentMotionforReconsiderationisnotforthcoming.In the same
waythatthepartiesmaynotarrogatetothemselvesthedeterminationofwhetheramotion
[16]
for reconsideration is necessary or not,
it is not up to petitioner to preempt the trial
courtsactiononhisUrgentMotionforReconsideration.Petitionersrecourseshouldhave
been to move for the trial courts resolution of his Urgent Motion for Reconsideration
insteadoffilingapetitionforcertioraribeforetheCourtofAppeals.TheCourtofAppeals
correctlyruledthatthepetitionforcertiorariwasprematurelyfiled.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/155374.htm

5/8

11/22/2015

G.R.No.155374

However,afterrulingthatthepetitionwasprematurelyfiled,theCourtofAppealsshould
haverefrainedfromfurtherrulingonthemeritsofthe9June1999Orderofthetrialcourt.
TherulingoftheCourtofAppealsonthevalidityofthe9June1999Orderpreemptedthe
trialcourtsresolutionofpetitionersUrgentMotionforReconsideration.

Considering the pendency of petitioners Urgent Motion for Reconsideration before the
trialcourt,itfollowsthatthepetitionbeforethisCourtisalsopremature.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition for premature filing. We SET ASIDE the 23
April 2002 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 53627 insofar as it
affirmedthe9June1999Orderofthetrialcourt.

SOORDERED.

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

CONCHITACARPIOMORALESDANTEO.TINGA
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/155374.htm

6/8