EN BANC
[ G.R. NO. 166859, June 26, 2006 ]REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN () +
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., AGRICULTURAL CONSULTANCY SERVICES, INC., ARCHIPELAGO REALTY CORP., BALENTE RANCH, INC., BLACK STALLON RANCH, INC., CHRISTENSEN PLANTATION COMPANY, DISCOVERY REALTY CORP.,
DREAM PASTURES, INC., ECHO RANCH, INC., FAR EAST RANCH, INC., FILSOV SHIPPING COMPANY, INC., FIRST UNITED TRANSPORT, INC., HABAGAT REALTY DEVELOPMENT, INC., KALAWAKAN RESORTS, INC., KAUNLARAN AGRICULTURAL CORP., LABAYUG AIR TERMINALS, INC., LANDAIR INTERNATIONAL MARKETING CORP.,
LHL CATTLE CORPORATION, LUCENA OIL FACTORY, INC., MEADOW LARK PLANTATIONS, INC., METROPLEX COMMODITIES, INC., MISTY MOUNTAIN AGRICULTURAL CORP., NORTHEAST CONTRACT TRADERS, INC., NORTHERN CARRIERS CORPORATION, OCEANSIDE MARITIME ENTERPRISES, INC., ORO VERDE SERVICES, INC.,
PASTORAL FARMS, INC., PCY OIL MANUFACTURING CORP., PHILIPPINE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., PRIMAVERA FARMS, INC., PUNONG-BAYAN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP., PURA ELECTRIC COMPANY INC., RADIO AUDIENCE DEVELOPERS INTEGRATED ORGANIZATION, INC., RADYO PILIPINO CORPORATION, RANCHO GRANDE, INC.,
REDDEE DEVELOPERS, INC., SAN ESTEBAN DEVELOPMENT CORP., SILVER LEAF PLANTATIONS, INC., SOUTHERN SERVICE TRADERS, INC., SOUTHERN STAR CATTLE CORP., SPADE ONE RESORTS CORP., UNEXPLORED LAND DEVELOPERS, INC., VERDANT PLANTATATIONS, INC., VESTA AGRICULTURAL CORP. AND WINGS RESORTS
CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.
RESOLUTION
REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN () +
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., AGRICULTURAL CONSULTANCY SERVICES, INC., ARCHIPELAGO REALTY CORP., BALENTE RANCH, INC., BLACK STALLON RANCH, INC., CHRISTENSEN PLANTATION COMPANY, DISCOVERY REALTY CORP.,
DREAM PASTURES, INC., ECHO RANCH, INC., FAR EAST RANCH, INC., FILSOV SHIPPING COMPANY, INC., FIRST UNITED TRANSPORT, INC., HABAGAT REALTY DEVELOPMENT, INC., KALAWAKAN RESORTS, INC., KAUNLARAN AGRICULTURAL CORP., LABAYUG AIR TERMINALS, INC., LANDAIR INTERNATIONAL MARKETING CORP.,
LHL CATTLE CORPORATION, LUCENA OIL FACTORY, INC., MEADOW LARK PLANTATIONS, INC., METROPLEX COMMODITIES, INC., MISTY MOUNTAIN AGRICULTURAL CORP., NORTHEAST CONTRACT TRADERS, INC., NORTHERN CARRIERS CORPORATION, OCEANSIDE MARITIME ENTERPRISES, INC., ORO VERDE SERVICES, INC.,
PASTORAL FARMS, INC., PCY OIL MANUFACTURING CORP., PHILIPPINE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., PRIMAVERA FARMS, INC., PUNONG-BAYAN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP., PURA ELECTRIC COMPANY INC., RADIO AUDIENCE DEVELOPERS INTEGRATED ORGANIZATION, INC., RADYO PILIPINO CORPORATION, RANCHO GRANDE, INC.,
REDDEE DEVELOPERS, INC., SAN ESTEBAN DEVELOPMENT CORP., SILVER LEAF PLANTATIONS, INC., SOUTHERN SERVICE TRADERS, INC., SOUTHERN STAR CATTLE CORP., SPADE ONE RESORTS CORP., UNEXPLORED LAND DEVELOPERS, INC., VERDANT PLANTATATIONS, INC., VESTA AGRICULTURAL CORP. AND WINGS RESORTS
CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.
RESOLUTION
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
For resolution is the Urgent Motion for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction which was filed by petitioner, Republic of the Philippines, during the pendency of its Petition for Certiorari before this Court challenging
the denial by public respondent, the Sandiganbayan, of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in Civil Case No. 0033-F (the civil case).
In support of its present urgent motion, petitioner pleads that the issue it raised in its Petition for Certiorari whether public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in denying its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment must first be resolved, as a continuation of the proceedings in the civil case by public respondent might be rendered unnecessary in the event that its Petition before this Court is resolved in its favor.
The mere elevation of an interlocutory matter to this Court through a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, like in the present case, does not by itself merit a suspension of the proceedings before a public respondent, unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction has been issued against the public respondent. Rule 65, Section 7 of the Rules of Court so provides:
The Court finds that petitioner has failed to discharge the burden. The ground on which it bases its urgent motion is the alleged futility of proceeding with the trial of the case. This assertion, however, is speculative, anchored on the mere supposition that the petition would be decided in its favor.
There is thus, in this case, a marked absence of any urgent necessity for the issuance of a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction.
It is gathered though that even prior to the filing of the instant motion, public respondent suspended the proceedings in the civil case, the absence of any temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction from this Court notwithstanding. Thus, petitioner brought to this Court's attention private respondents' insistence to have the civil case set for trial by public respondent, citing private respondents' filing of a "Motion Reiterating Motion to Set Case for Trial" dated June 27, 2005, "Second Motion Reiterating Motion to Set Case for Trial" dated October 26, 2005, and "Manifestation and Motion Reiterating Motion to Set Case for Trial" dated December 8, 2005.[3]
The earlier quoted Section 7 of Rule 65 provides the general rule that the mere pendency of a special civil action for Certiorari commenced in relation to a case pending before a lower court or court of origin does not stay the proceedings therein in the absence of a writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order.[4]
There are of course instances where even if there is no writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order issued by a higher court, it would be proper for a lower court or court of origin to suspend its proceedings on the precept of judicial courtesy. As this Court explained in Eternal Gardens Memorial Park v. Court of Appeals:[5]
This Court explained, however, that the rule on "judicial courtesy" applies where "there is a strong probability that the issues before the higher court would be rendered moot and moribund as a result of the continuation of the proceedings in the lower court [or court of origin]".[6]
A final word. This Court takes notice that in most cases where its interlocutory orders are challenged before this Court, public respondent, Sandiganbayan, suspends proceedings in the cases in which these assailed interlocutory orders are issued despite the non-issuance by this Court of a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction and the absence of a strong probability that the issues raised before this Court would be rendered moot by a continuation of the proceedings before it (Sandiganbayan).
WHEREFORE, the URGENT MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION filed by petitioner REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES is DENIED.
The SANDIGANBAYAN is, however, ORDERED, in light of the foregoing discussion, to continue the proceedings in Civil Case No. 0033-F, as well as in all other cases where its interlocutory orders are on challenge before this Court but no Temporary Restraining Order or Writ of Preliminary Injunction has been issued and there is no strong probability that the issues raised before this Court would be rendered moot and moribund.
SO ORDERED.
Panganiban, C.J., Puno, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Garcia, and Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1] Tayag v. Lacson, G.R. No. 134971, March 25, 2004, 426 SCRA 282, 299.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Urgent Motion for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction, p. 11.
[4] Spouses Diaz v. Diaz, 387 Phil. 314, 335 (2000).
[5] G.R. No. L-50054. August 17, 1988, 164 SCRA 421, 427-428.
[6] Go v. Abrogar, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1759. February 27, 2003, 398 SCRA 166, 171.
In support of its present urgent motion, petitioner pleads that the issue it raised in its Petition for Certiorari whether public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in denying its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment must first be resolved, as a continuation of the proceedings in the civil case by public respondent might be rendered unnecessary in the event that its Petition before this Court is resolved in its favor.
The mere elevation of an interlocutory matter to this Court through a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, like in the present case, does not by itself merit a suspension of the proceedings before a public respondent, unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction has been issued against the public respondent. Rule 65, Section 7 of the Rules of Court so provides:
SECTION 7. Expediting proceedings; injunctive relief. The court in which the petition [for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus] is filed may issue orders expediting the proceedings, and it may also grant a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction for the preservation of the rights of the parties pending such proceedings. The petition shall not interrupt the course of the principal case unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction has been issued against the public respondent from further proceeding in the case. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)The burden is thus on the petitioner in a petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus to show that there is a meritorious ground for the issuance of a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction for the purpose of suspending the proceedings before the public respondent.[1] Essential for granting injunctive relief is the existence of an urgent necessity for the writ in order to prevent serious damage.[2]
The Court finds that petitioner has failed to discharge the burden. The ground on which it bases its urgent motion is the alleged futility of proceeding with the trial of the case. This assertion, however, is speculative, anchored on the mere supposition that the petition would be decided in its favor.
There is thus, in this case, a marked absence of any urgent necessity for the issuance of a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction.
It is gathered though that even prior to the filing of the instant motion, public respondent suspended the proceedings in the civil case, the absence of any temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction from this Court notwithstanding. Thus, petitioner brought to this Court's attention private respondents' insistence to have the civil case set for trial by public respondent, citing private respondents' filing of a "Motion Reiterating Motion to Set Case for Trial" dated June 27, 2005, "Second Motion Reiterating Motion to Set Case for Trial" dated October 26, 2005, and "Manifestation and Motion Reiterating Motion to Set Case for Trial" dated December 8, 2005.[3]
The earlier quoted Section 7 of Rule 65 provides the general rule that the mere pendency of a special civil action for Certiorari commenced in relation to a case pending before a lower court or court of origin does not stay the proceedings therein in the absence of a writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order.[4]
There are of course instances where even if there is no writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order issued by a higher court, it would be proper for a lower court or court of origin to suspend its proceedings on the precept of judicial courtesy. As this Court explained in Eternal Gardens Memorial Park v. Court of Appeals:[5]
Although this Court did not issue any restraining order against the Intermediate Appellate Court to prevent it from taking any action with regard to its resolutions respectively granting respondents' motion to expunge from the records the petitioner's motion to dismiss and denying the latter's motion to reconsider such order, upon learning of the petition, the appellate court should have refrained from ruling thereon because its jurisdiction was necessarily limited upon the filing of a petition for certiorari with this Court questioning the propriety of the issuance of the above-mentioned resolutions. Due respect for the Supreme Court and practical and ethical considerations should have prompted the appellate court to wait for the final determination of the petition before taking cognizance of the case and trying to render moot exactly what was before this court x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)A reading of Eternal Gardens Memorial Park shows that the appellate court's failure to observe judicial courtesy which was frowned upon by this Court lay in its recall of its (the appellate court's) Orders expunging from the records the Motion to Dismiss filed by the therein petitioner, which Orders were the orders being questioned before this Court via a petition for Certiorari and Mandamus. Such act of the appellate court tended to render moot and academic the said petition. No parity of circumstances obtains in the present case, however, where merely setting the case for trial would not have the effect of rendering the present petition moot.
This Court explained, however, that the rule on "judicial courtesy" applies where "there is a strong probability that the issues before the higher court would be rendered moot and moribund as a result of the continuation of the proceedings in the lower court [or court of origin]".[6]
A final word. This Court takes notice that in most cases where its interlocutory orders are challenged before this Court, public respondent, Sandiganbayan, suspends proceedings in the cases in which these assailed interlocutory orders are issued despite the non-issuance by this Court of a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction and the absence of a strong probability that the issues raised before this Court would be rendered moot by a continuation of the proceedings before it (Sandiganbayan).
WHEREFORE, the URGENT MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION filed by petitioner REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES is DENIED.
The SANDIGANBAYAN is, however, ORDERED, in light of the foregoing discussion, to continue the proceedings in Civil Case No. 0033-F, as well as in all other cases where its interlocutory orders are on challenge before this Court but no Temporary Restraining Order or Writ of Preliminary Injunction has been issued and there is no strong probability that the issues raised before this Court would be rendered moot and moribund.
SO ORDERED.
Panganiban, C.J., Puno, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Garcia, and Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1] Tayag v. Lacson, G.R. No. 134971, March 25, 2004, 426 SCRA 282, 299.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Urgent Motion for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction, p. 11.
[4] Spouses Diaz v. Diaz, 387 Phil. 314, 335 (2000).
[5] G.R. No. L-50054. August 17, 1988, 164 SCRA 421, 427-428.
[6] Go v. Abrogar, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1759. February 27, 2003, 398 SCRA 166, 171.