Case Digest (G.R. No. 84324)
Facts:
In Santiago Aquino, Terencio Yumang, Jr. and Fulgencio Icaro v. Hon. Guillermo R. Luntok and Ludovico B. Peralta, G.R. No. 84324, April 05, 1990, the Supreme Court Second Division, Regalado, J., writing for the Court, resolved a petition for certiorari with an application for preliminary injunction and/or restraining order.
Petitioners, in their official capacities as provincial auditors and state examiners of Camarines Sur, audited Ludovico B. Peralta, then Municipal Treasurer of Libmanan, and found a cash shortage of P274,011.17. Allegedly acting under Section 157, Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, petitioners seized Peralta’s cash, books and papers and suspended him from office; Peralta sought reinvestigation by the Commission on Audit (COA) and, on August 26, 1987, filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch XXIX, Libmanan, for prohibition with injunction and damages.
On August 27, 1987 the RTC, presided by respondent Judge Guillermo R. Luntok, issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) effective twenty (20) days. On September 16, 1987 the court extended the TRO for another twenty days (until October 6, 1987). During that period the RTC on September 24 ordered petitioners to return the seized items; petitioners moved for reconsideration and filed an answer and opposition to the application for preliminary injunction on October 5. On October 6, 1987 the judge issued an order directing petitioners to refrain from acting until a motion for further extension was resolved—an order that effectively prolonged restraint beyond the 20-day window.
Petitioners filed a certiorari action in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 13186) on October 27, 1987, challenging the three TROs of August 27, September 16 and October 6, 1987. While that petition was pending, the RTC on November 4, 1987 granted Peralta’s application for a writ of preliminary injunction; on November 5 it approved Peralta’s bond; and on November 11 it issued the writ. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition as moot on May 11, 1988 because the RTC had already granted the writ. The CA judgment became final.
In the present petition to the Supreme Court, petitioners sought annulment of the RTC orders of November 4 and November 5, 1987 and...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did petitioners fail to exhaust administrative remedies so as to bar judicial relief (i.e., was the trial court precluded from granting injunctive relief while COA reinvestigation was pending)?
- Is a writ of preliminary injunction issued after the 20-day period of a TRO (and after extensions/orders that effectively prolonged the restraining effect) void ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)