Mendoza, et. al. vs.

LWUA (RTC Decision, which was AFFIRMED by the CA)

Facts:

A petition for Injunction/Prohibition, with application for TRO and/or Writ of

Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction was filed by Mendoza, et. al. against LWUA to
prevent the latter, its assigns and agents, from discontinuing the grant to
petitioners of the daily meal allowance of P200.00 pending resolution of the
petition.

Petitioners claim that they are incumbent employees of LWUA as of June

1989 who received and are still receiving as of the filing of the petition their daily
meal allowance of P200.00; that the instant petition only covers LWUA employees
who signed the same and excludes non-petitioners, as well as those who were hired
after June 30, 1989, they all have the legal right to receive their daily meal
allowance of P200.00 under existing laws and applicable jurisprudence.

Pursuant to Resolution No. 138 issued on December 17, 2014 of the LWUA
Board of Trustees, the P200.00 daily meal allowance was ordered to reverted to
P3.00 per day. The said resolution was released on February 20, 2015 or four (4)
days after the filing of the instant petition on February 16, 2015.

After petitioners’ prayer for a TRO was denied, the application for a writ of
preliminary prohibitory injunction was set for hearing on March 17, 2015. Parties
were directed to submit their respective memoranda, after which, the matter is
considered submitted for resolution on the basis thereof and other evidence on the
factual issues alleged in their pleadings.

Held:

It is settled that a writ of preliminary injunction should be issued only to

prevent grave and irreparable injury, that is, injury that is actual, substantial and
demonstrable. The applicant must possess a clear legal right – meaning, one clearly
founded in or granted by law or is “enforceable as a matter of law”.

In this case, there is no denial of the fact that said notices of disallowances
are under appeal with the COA, an independent constitutional commission, which
has been empowered to define the scope of its audit examination and to establish
the techniques and methods required therefor, and to promulgate accounting and
auditing rules and regulations, including those for the prevention and disallowance
of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant or unconscionable expenditures or
uses of government funds and properties pursuant to Section 2, Article IX of the
1987 Philippine Constitution. Hence, pending the final resolution of the appeal by
the COA, the legal right being ______ by the petitioners is obviously doubtful which
does not warrant by the issuance of an injunctive writ.

As an independent constitutional body conferred with such power, it

reasonably follows that the COA’s interpretation of its own auditing rules and
regulations, as enunciated in its decisions, should be accorded great weight and
respect.

On the other point, the Court maintains that any damages petitioners may
suffer us easily quantifiable and certainly does not fall within the concept of
irreparable damages or injury as described in SSC vs. Bayona, et. al. which was
echoed in the case of Heirs of Melencio Yu vs. Hon. CA, et.al. thus, if petitioners’
claim is proven, it is fully compensable by award of damages.