FACTS:

The petitioner in this case, Tiong Bi, Inc., filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court to challenge the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA denied their motion for immediate issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO). The charges against the petitioner arose from similar charges against two eye surgeons who used petitioner's facilities and staff, and included fraudulent benefit claims. The PhilHealth's Arbitration Department dismissed the charges against the doctors but found the petitioner guilty, imposing a six-month suspension of accreditation and a fine of P170,000. The petitioner appealed the PhilHealth Resolution, arguing that it was based on the wrong case and should be dismissed like the charges against the doctors. They also sought the issuance of a temporary restraining order, citing public interest and the potential closure of their hospital. The CA denied the motion for a TRO, stating that there was no actual existing right to be protected or possibility of irreparable injury. The main case is still pending before the CA. The petitioner now seeks review before the Supreme Court, claiming that the CA erred in refusing to issue an injunctive writ and that the PhilHealth Resolution was based on the wrong case, lacked factual and legal basis, and was speculative.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the issuance of a temporary restraining order

RULING:

1. The Court of Appeals (CA) denied the petitioner's motion for issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the ground that there was no actual existing right to be protected on the part of the petitioner nor the possibility of irreparable injury.

PRINCIPLES:

• An interlocutory order, as opposed to a final judgment or order, is one that does not dispose of the case completely but leaves something to be decided upon.