G.R. No. 215807 - Cahambing vs. EspiNo.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 215807)

Factual Background

The contested property is Lot B or Lot 354, with an area of 1,341 square meters, located in Maasin City, Southern Leyte. Deceased spouses Librado and Brigida Espinosa made testamentary dispositions concerning their shares in Lot 354; the wills were duly probated. The wills originally bequeathed shares over Lot 354 to Victor Espinosa, but Brigida subsequently revoked her will and purportedly gave one-half of Lot 354 to Rosario E. Cahambing. An extrajudicial partition between Brigida and Victor subdivided Lot 354 into Lot 354-A (503.5 square meters), adjudicated to Brigida, and Lot 354-B (837.5 square meters), adjudicated to Victor, who obtained a certificate of title thereafter. The commercial structure known as the Espinosa Building stood on Lot 354 and at the time of the complaint there were twelve lessees; petitioner collected rentals from four tenants identified as Pacifica Agrivet Supplies, Family Circle, Ariane’s Gift Items, and Julie’s Bakeshop.

Origin of the Dispute and Pre-Existing Order

Petitioner was not included in the extrajudicial partition and filed Civil Case No. R-2912 for annulment of the partition. During pre-trial proceedings the Clerk of Court acting as Commissioner issued an Order dated April 16, 1998 directing maintenance of the status quo. Petitioner alleged that private respondent Juana Ang induced certain lessees not to renew leases with petitioner and to contract with Victor Espinosa instead. Private respondents denied the allegations and later accused petitioner of violating the status quo by permitting petitioner’s sons to occupy the leased premises of Jhanel’s Pharmacy, a tenant with an existing lease to Victor Espinosa.

Trial Court Proceedings and Injunctive Relief

On March 3, 2009 Victor Espinosa filed an application for a writ of preliminary injunction with prayer for a temporary restraining order, alleging that petitioner’s acts disturbed the status quo and threatened ongoing leases. The RTC granted a temporary restraining order on March 6, 2009. After hearing, the RTC issued an Order dated September 22, 2009 granting the application for a writ of preliminary injunction conditioned upon the filing of an injunction bond in the sum of PhP50,000.00 and enjoining petitioner and those claiming under her from disturbing respondent’s possession of the leased premises or the status quo ante until final disposition of the case or further court order. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by RTC Resolution dated February 25, 2010.

Proceedings in the Court of Appeals

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in issuing the writ, contending inter alia that respondents had themselves violated the status quo and that the requisites for injunction were not satisfied. The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated November 29, 2013, dismissed the petition and affirmed the RTC’s Order and Resolution, finding no grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the writ. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated October 28, 2014.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Petitioner advanced two principal contentions: first, that private respondents had “dirty hands” by wresting control of leased space from petitioner and thus could not invoke equitable relief (captioned “He who seeks equity must do equity”); and second, that the writ of preliminary injunction was erroneously issued because the requisites for injunctive relief were not present — specifically that respondents’ damages were quantifiable and therefore not irreparable, that respondent Victor Espinosa was at best a co-owner and could not exclude co-owners, that there was no urgency because the application was filed more than one year after the incident, and that the alleged wrongful entry into Jhanel’s Pharmacy was voluntary surrender by the lessee.

Parties' Contentions on Appeal

Petitioner urged that the Court of Appeals failed to consider respondents’ prior disturbance of the status quo and that the injunction was issued despite lack of legal requisites and availability of adequate pecuniary remedy. Petitioner quantified alleged damages at P12,000.00 per month and argued that respondents lacked a clear and unmistakable right. Respondents maintained that they did not have sullied hands, that the issuance of the writ complied with the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure, and that the requisites for injunction were met; they filed a Comment dated June 4, 2015. Petitioner filed a Reply dated August 14, 2015 reiterating earlier arguments.

Standard of Review and Preliminary Observations by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the petition under Rule 45, Rules of Court raised predominantly factual questions and that Rule 45 ordinarily permits review only of questions of law. The Court reiterated that factual findings of the Court of Appeals, when supported by substantial evidence, are generally conclusive and binding and are not subject to reexamination except under recognized exceptions. The Court recalled that it is not a trier of facts and that interference with the discretionary grant or denial of a writ of preliminary injunction is warranted only upon a showing of grave abuse of discretion.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court denied the petition for review and affirmed the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals and the Order and Resolution of the Regional Trial Court. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction and held that the Court of Appeals correctly sustained the RTC’s factual and legal determinations.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court applied the governing principles on injunctive relief as articulated in Philippine National Bank v. RJ Ventures Realty and Development Corporation, et al., 534 Phil. 769 (2006) and reiterated the statutory grounds in Section 3, Rule 58, Rules of Court, namely that a preliminary injunction may be granted when the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, when continuation or commission of the act would probably work injustice to the applicant, or when acts threaten to render judgment ineffectual. The Court summarized the requisites for a writ of preliminary injunction as the existence of a clear and unmistakable right to be protected and an urgent and paramount necessity to prevent serious damage, and noted additional considerations of cause of action, probability of irreparable injury

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 215807)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Rosario E. Cahambing filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court dated November 28, 2014 before the Supreme Court.
Victor Espinosa and Juana Ang were respondents below and seek enforcement of an RTC-issued writ of preliminary injunction.
The petition assails the Decision dated November 29, 2013 and Resolution dated October 28, 2014 of the Court of Appeals affirming the Order dated September 22, 2009 and Resolution dated February 25, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Maasin City in Civil Case No. R-2912.
The RTC had issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining petitioner and those claiming under her from disturbing respondent Victor Espinosa’s possession of a leased commercial space pending final determination of the annulment action.

Key Factual Allegations

The parties are siblings and heirs of deceased Librado and Brigida Espinosa, who owned Lot 354 in Maasin City that was the subject of probated wills and an extrajudicial partition.
The extrajudicial partition adjudicated Lot 354-A to Brigida and Lot 354-B to Victor Espinosa, who obtained a certificate of title.
Petitioner claimed exclusion from the partition and filed Civil Case No. R-2912 for annulment of the extrajudicial partition.
A commercial building known as Espinosa Building stood on Lot 354 and, at the time of suit, had twelve lessees, four of whom paid rentals to Rosario E. Cahambing, namely Pacifica Agrivet Supplies, Family Circle, Ariane’s Gift Items, and Julie’s Bakeshop.
Petitioner alleged that Juana Ang induced Pacifica Agrivet Supplies to lease from Victor Espinosa and threatened similar conduct toward other lessees.
Victor Espinosa filed an Application for Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated March 3, 2009, alleging that petitioner’s sons violated a prior status quo order by entering and occupying the commercial space leased to Jhanel’s Pharmacy.
The RTC granted a temporary restraining order on March 6, 2009 and subsequently issued the writ of preliminary injunction on September 22, 2009 conditioned upon posting an injunction bond of PhP50,000.00.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on February 25, 2010, and the Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s Rule 65 petition on November 29, 2013 and her motion for reconsideration on October 28, 2014.

Issues

Petitioner argued that the CA erred in validating the writ of preliminary injunction despite respondents’ alleged violation of the status quo and alleged unclean hands.
Petitioner contended that the requisites for a writ of preliminary injunction under Section 3, Rule 58, Rules of Court were not satisfied, asserting that respondents’ claimed damages were quantifiable and not irreparable.
Petitioner advanced specific contentions that respondents’ damages were quantifiable at PhP12,000.00 per month, that Victor Espinosa as co-owner lacked a clear and unmistakable right to exclude co-owners, that the application for injunction lacked urgency, and that Jhanel’s Pharmacy voluntarily surrendered possession.

Parties' Contentions

Petitioner Rosario E. Cahambing maintained that respondents had sullied hands by wresting control of leased spaces and that the injunction was improperly granted despite quantifiable damages and lack of urgency.
Respondents Victor Espinosa and Juana An