Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J : p
Upon UCPB's motion, the RTC issued another Order 16 dated September
14, 2001 directing the issuance of a writ of execution to enforce its September
13, 2001 Order. Accordingly, a Writ of Execution 17 was issued directing the
Sheriff to put UCPB in possession of the disputed premises. It was satisfied on
September 17, 2001. 18 The employees of UniAlloy were evicted from the
leased premises and UCPB's representatives were placed in possession
thereof.
On September 25, 2001, UniAlloy received copies of the RTC Orders. 19
And on October 9, 2001, it filed with the Court of Appeals, Manila Station (CA
Manila) its petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 67079 attributing grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the court a quo in (i) dismissing its petition on the
grounds of improper venue, forum-shopping and harassment, (ii) ordering the
turnover of the property in question to UCPB after the dismissal of the
Complaint, and (iii) applying the Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra-corporate
Controversies.
On October 18, 2001, the CA Manila issued a TRO. After hearing, the CA
Manila issued a Resolution 20 dated February 18, 2002 granting UniAlloy's
ancillary prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction upon
posting of a bond in the amount of P300,000.00. CDHaET
On August 17, 2007, the CA CDO issued the assailed Decision denying
UniAlloy's petition and affirming the RTC's questioned Orders. It opined inter
alia that UniAlloy erred in resorting to a Rule 65 petition because its proper
recourse should have been to appeal the questioned Orders of the RTC, viz.:
It is plain from the record, though, that Unialloy had lost its right
to appeal. The time to make use of that remedy is gone. It is glaringly
obvious that Unialloy resorted to this extraordinary remedy of certiorari
a n d mandamus as a substitute vehicle for securing a review and
reversal of the questioned order of dismissal which it had, by its own
fault, allowed to lapse into finality. Unfortunately, none of the arguments
and issues raised by Unialloy in its petition can adequately brand the 13
September 2001 Order as void on its face for being jurisdictionally
flawed, nor mask the fact that it became final and executory by
Unialloy's failure to file an appeal on time. And so, even if the assailed
order of dismissal might arguably not have been entirely free from
some errors in substance, or lapses in procedure or in findings of fact
or of law, and which on that account could have been reversed or
modified on appeal, the indelible fact, however is that it was never
appealed. It had become final and executory. It is now beyond the
power of this Court to modify it. 29
Hence, this Petition raising the following issues for Our resolution:
1. Whether the Court of Appeals (Cagayan de Oro City) erred, or acted
without, or in excess of jurisdiction, or committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack, or excess of jurisdiction in DENYING
United Alloy's Motion to Issue and Implement Writ of Preliminary
Mandatory Injunction in this case, DESPITE the earlier resolution
dated February 18, 2002 issued by the same Court of Appeals
(Manila) of coordinate and co-equal jurisdiction which granted
United Alloy's Motion for Issuance of Preliminary Injunction upon
bond of P300,000.00, and DESPITE this Honorable Court's decision
dated January 28, 2005 in the certiorari case G.R. No. 152238 filed
by UCPB to assail the Court of Appeals's Resolution of February 18,
2002, which decision sustained the said resolution of February 18,
2002, and DENIED UCPB's petition in said G.R. No. 152238. STaAcC
Except for cases falling under paragraphs (f), (h), or (i), the dismissal of
an action based on the above-enumerated grounds is without prejudice and
does not preclude the refiling of the same action. And, under Section 1 (g) of
Rule 41, 34 an order dismissing an action without prejudice is not appealable.
The proper remedy therefrom is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule
65. 35 But, if the reason for the dismissal is based on paragraphs (f), (h), or (i)
(i.e., res judicata, prescription, extinguishment of the claim or demand, and
unenforceability under the Statute of Frauds) the dismissal, under Section 5,
36 of Rule 16, is with prejudice and the remedy of the aggrieved party is to
appeal the order granting the motion to dismiss.
Here, the dismissal of UniAlloy's Complaint was without prejudice. The
September 13, 2001 Order of the RTC dismissing UniAlloy's Complaint was
based on the grounds of improper venue, forum-shopping and for being a
harassment suit, which do not fall under paragraphs (f), (h), or (i) of Section 1,
Rule 16. Stated differently, none of the grounds for the dismissal of UniAlloy's
Complaint is included in Section 5 of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. Hence,
since the dismissal of its Complaint was without prejudice, the remedy then
available to UniAlloy was a Rule 65 petition.
CA CDO did not err in affirming the
dismissal of UniAlloy's Complaint on
the grounds of improper venue, forum-
shopping and for being a harassment
suit.
The RTC was correct in dismissing UniAlloy's Complaint on the ground of
improper venue. In general, personal actions must be commenced and tried (i)
where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, (ii) where the
defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or (iii) in the case of a
non-resident defendant where he may be found, at the election of the
plaintiff. 37 Nevertheless, the parties may agree in writing to limit the venue
of future actions between them to a specified place. 38 aCTHDA
Forum-shopping indeed exists in this case, for both actions involve the
same transactions and same essential facts and circumstances as well as
identical causes of action, subject matter and issues. . . . 42
The dismissal of UniAlloy's main
action carries with it the dissolution of
any ancillary relief previously granted
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
therein.
UniAlloy argues that the CA CDO erred in denying its petition
considering that this Court has already sustained with finality the CA Manila's
February 18, 2002 Resolution granting its prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction.
The contention is non sequitur.
"Provisional remedies [also known as ancillary or auxiliary remedies],
are writs and processes available during the pendency of the action which
may be resorted to by a litigant to preserve and protect certain rights and
interests pending rendition, and for purposes of the ultimate effects, of a final
judgment in the case. They are provisional because they constitute temporary
measures availed of during the pendency of the action, and they are ancillary
because they are mere incidents in and are dependent upon the result of the
main action." 43 One of the provisional remedies provided in the Rules of Court
is preliminary injunction, which may be resorted to by a litigant at any stage
of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order to compel a
party or a court, agency or a person to refrain from doing a particular act or
acts. 44 In Bacolod City Water District v. Hon. Labayen, 45 this Court elucidated
that the auxiliary remedy of preliminary injunction persists only until it is
dissolved or until the termination of the main action without the court issuing
a final injunction, viz.:
. . . Injunction is a judicial writ, process or proceeding whereby a party is
ordered to do or refrain from doing a certain act, It may be the main
action or merely a provisional remedy for and as an incident in the main
action. aATEDS
1. CA rollo, p. 1552.
2. Rollo, pp. 11-33.
3. C A rollo, pp. 1536-1553; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello and
concurred in by Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Elihu Y.
Ybañez.
8. UCPB co-owns 75.67% undivided shape of the property with Development Bank
of the Philippines, which has 24.33% interest therein. Id. at 28.
9. Records, pp. 1-15. Incidentally, UCPB likewise filed a complaint for sum of money
with prayer for preliminary attachment before the Regional Trial Court of
Makati City docketed as Civil Case No. 01-1332. It alleged, among others,
that UniAlloy failed to pay its obligations under the Promissory Notes, which
are also the subject of UniAlloy's Complaint.
10. See Order dated August 27, 2001, id. at 55-56; penned by Executive Judge Noli
T. Catli, Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Cagayan de Oro City.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
11. Id. at 40-44.
12. This and the subsequent grounds were raised in respondent Jakob Van Der Sluis'
Supplement to Motion to Dismiss [and] Manifestation; id. at 72-76.
23. 490 Phil. 353 (2005); penned by then Associate Justice Artemio V. Panganiban
(later to become Chief Justice) and concurred in by Associate Justices
Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Renato C. Corona (later also became Chief
Justice), Conchita Carpio-Morales, and Cancio C. Garcia.
26. C A rollo, pp. 1346-1353; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello and
concurred in by Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Ramon R. Garcia.
48. Atty. Cabili v. Judge Balindong, 672 Phil. 398, 406-407 (2011).