G.R. No. 138219 - Tambaoan vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 138219)

Factual Background

Civil Case No. 94-00321-D was filed on 30 September 1994 by Loreto Aquino, and seven other barangay captains: Cenon Aquino, Fred Castillo, Cesario Biala, Rufino Gatinga, Pedro Meneses, Eugenio Mosada, Jr., and Jesus Tolentino, Sr. They claimed to have been the elected officers of the Liga ng mga Barangay of Mapandan, Pangasinan.

On 30 June 1994, all fifteen barangay captains of Mapandan convened at the Sangguniang Bayan Session Hall to elect the officers and directors of the Liga ng mga Barangay. Thelma Quinto, along with her co-defendants, walked out and boycotted the election. The election proceeded among the eight remaining barangay captains, including Loreto Aquino, who were treated as the electing body.

On 6 July 1994, Loreto Aquino was recognized as elected President of the Liga ng mga Barangay of Mapandan, as shown by an official notification by the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG). However, on 21 July 1994, Alex David, President and Secretary General of the National Liga ng mga Barangay, recalled the Certificate of Confirmation issued to Loreto Aquino. The recall was said to have been based on a review of the Certificates of Canvass and Proclamation and on the alleged absence of the requisite signatures of representatives of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS), among others.

Because of an alleged failure in the election of officers, the Liga Board, through its President, appointed Thelma Quinto as President of the Liga ng mga Barangay on 20 September 1994. Thereafter, Quinto filed with the DILG a petition for declaration of nullity of the election of Loreto Aquino as ABC President.

RTC Proceedings on Injunction and the Orders of 25 October 1994 and 6 January 1995

Loreto Aquino and his co-plaintiffs challenged the appointment/designation of Quinto and her co-defendants by filing an action for “Declaration of Nullity of Appointments, Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order, Injunction and Damages” before the RTC of Dagupan City, Branch 40 (Civil Case No. 94-00321-D). On 4 October 1994, Judge Deodoro Sison issued a temporary restraining order. On 25 October 1994, however, Judge Sison denied the request for a writ of preliminary injunction and lifted the temporary restraining order.

In the 25 October 1994 order, Judge Sison held, among others, that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies; that another case involving the same subject matter and parties was pending before the DILG Provincial Office; that, except for Loreto Aquino, the other plaintiffs had no legal personality as party plaintiffs and had no cause of action; and that on 30 June 1994 there was a failure of elections for the Liga ng mga Barangay in Mapandan. The court also treated the President/Secretary General’s recall of the Certificate of Confirmation as relevant and found the appointment/designation of Quinto’s group valid under the Sec. 3, Art. IX of the Revised Implementing Rules and Guidelines for the General Elections of the Liga ng mga Barangay Officers.

Judge Sison further reasoned that the plaintiffs had not shown a clear and positive right entitling them to injunctive relief and that they had no cause of action against the defendants. The application for a writ of injunction was denied for lack of merit.

A motion for reconsideration was denied in an order dated 6 January 1995, which also directed that there was no legal impediment for Quinto “to assume office and to draw her salary” starting 28 September 1994, when she had taken her oath and qualified.

Execution Attempts and the Conduct of Quinto in Office

A writ of execution issued to implement the 25 October 1994 and 6 January 1995 orders was later returned unsatisfied through a sheriff’s return dated 7 July 1995. Quinto then filed an ex parte motion for an alias writ of execution, which Judge Sison acted upon in an order dated 28 July 1995.

With her appointment and the RTC orders, Quinto reported for work as member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Mapandan. Petitioners, however, refused to permit her to enter the Municipal session hall. Quinto repeatedly demanded that she be allowed to assume office and perform her duties, but petitioners refused. Unable to gain access to the session hall, she held office and performed duties at the corridors. Meanwhile, Loreto Aquino continued discharging his duties as the elected President of the Liga ng mga Barangay and also assumed his position as ex-officio member of the Sangguniang Bayan.

Quinto also made demands upon the Municipal Treasurer to pay her salaries. On the other hand, Loreto Aquino filed a motion for inhibition of Judge Sison, and the case was raffled to Judge Laron.

Alias Writ, Third-Party Complaint, and Quinto’s Mandamus Petition

Quinto sought RTC action by filing an Urgent Motion for Issuance of an Alias Writ of Execution and to Cite Plaintiff and Others in Contempt of Court, which petitioners opposed.

On 14 December 1995, Quinto instituted a third-party complaint against petitioners Gerardo Tambaoan, Azil Aquino, Perla Gutoman and Teresita Eden—then the incumbent Mayor, Vice-Mayor, Treasurer, and Accountant of Mapandan—primarily to bring them within the trial court’s jurisdiction. On 18 September 1996, Judge Laron issued an order granting the alias writ and directing certain municipal officials, including the Mayor and Treasurer, to pay Quinto’s salary “from September 28, 1994 up to the present,” while stating that the court would rule on the contempt depending on the results of the alias writ.

Quinto, aggrieved by continued refusal to satisfy and enforce the writs, went to the Court of Appeals on 30 October 1996 by way of a petition for mandamus docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 42368. In the RTC, the case proceeded toward pre-trial, but Quinto filed a motion to strike out the pre-trial order, asserting that the case had already been finally disposed of.

On 6 November 1996, Judge Laron reconsidered the order granting the alias writ and recalled the alias writ of execution. The RTC denied Quinto’s motion for reconsideration on 18 December 1996.

Quinto then amended her mandamus petition to include review by certiorari of the orders dated 6 November 1996 and 18 December 1996. The Court of Appeals admitted the amended petition on 13 March 1997.

The Court of Appeals’ Ruling in Certiorari and Mandamus

On 30 April 1997, the Court of Appeals ruled in Quinto’s favor. It stressed that nothing in the records suggested that petitioners had taken measures to contest the 6 January 1995 order, such as a motion for reconsideration, a petition for certiorari, or an appeal. It treated the order allowing Quinto to assume office and draw salary as clear and imposing no qualification.

The Court of Appeals further held that the 6 January 1995 order had become final because no action addressed to the trial court or the appellate courts was taken within the prescribed periods to dispute its soundness and legality. It concluded that, since the order was final and immediately executory, it was properly subject to execution, and that mandamus would compel issuance of execution because such issuance was characterized as a ministerial duty. The Court of Appeals set aside the RTC orders of 6 November 1996 and 18 December 1996, declared the enforceability of the 6 January 1995 order immediately, and remanded the case to the RTC for reception of evidence on petitioners’ claim for damages.

The appellate court denied reconsideration in a resolution dated 7 April 1999, prompting the petition for review.

Issues Raised in the Petition for Review

Petitioners raised five issues: (a) whether Quinto’s appointment as President of the Liga ng mga Barangay was valid; (b) whether Quinto could serve as ex-officio member of the Sangguniang Bayan on the basis of her appointment; (c) whether the 6 January 1995 order of Judge Sison was final or interlocutory; (d) whether the 6 January 1995 order was enforceable as ordered by the Court of Appeals; and (e) whether the RTC orders dated 6 November 1996 and 18 December 1996 were issued without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion.

Posture of the Parties Before the Supreme Court

The Court required memoranda. Petitioners complied. Quinto did not submit a memorandum; she only filed a “Compliance” attaching a copy of the previously filed comment, signaling a desire to submit the case based on existing pleadings.

Petitioners argued that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the 6 January 1995 order could be enforced and subjected to writ of execution. Quinto maintained that the order had become final and executory because petitioners failed to file a motion for reconsideration or an appeal questioning its legality.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling on Finality and Enforceability

The Court granted the petition and reversed the Court of Appeals.

The Court explained that an order is final if it ends the particular matter resolved or definitely settles the subject disposed of such that no further questions can come before the court except in relation to execution. A final order may address the entire controversy or a defined, separate branch of it. Conversely, an interlocutory order leaves substantial proceedings yet to be had and remains provisional.

The Court adopted a controlling test: whether the order leaves something else for the trial court to do on the case. If it leaves something else to be done, it is interlocutory; if it does not, it is final.

Applying the test, the Court held that the RTC would still have to hear the parties on the merits of the principal action, which involved the declaration of nullity of the appointments and damages. The Court was persuaded by Judge Laron’s reasoning in recalling the 18 September 1996 order granting the alias writ of execution, particularly that petitioners were not impleaded as parties in the case in a manner that could bind them consistent with due

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 138219)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The case arose from Civil Case No. 94-00321-D filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City, Branch 40.
Plaintiffs in the trial court were Loreto Aquino, Cenon Aquino, Fred Castillo, Cesario Biala, Rufino Gatinga, Pedro Meneses, Eugenio Mosada, Jr., and Jesus Tolentino, Sr., all identified as barangay captains connected with the Liga ng mga Barangay (ABC) of Mapandan, Pangasinan.
Defendants in the trial court included Thelma P. Quinto and seven other barangay captains who claimed legitimacy through appointments issued by then President Alex David of the National Liga ng mga Barangay.
The petitioners were Ex-Mayor Gerardo V. Tamabaoan, Ex-Vice Mayor Azil C. Aquino, Municipal Treasurer Perla Gutoman, Deputy Sheriff Marcelino Bonuan, and several other named officials and individuals identified in the petition.
The principal respondent was The Court of Appeals, with Thelma P. Quinto as private respondent in the appellate proceedings.
The trial court initially issued and later lifted injunctive relief, and later permitted enforcement measures through writ execution processes.
The Court of Appeals rendered a decision ordering enforceability of a January 6, 1995 RTC order and setting aside later RTC orders.
The present recourse asked for review of the Court of Appeals’ ruling, focusing on whether a January 6, 1995 order was final or merely interlocutory and whether it was enforceable by execution.

Key Factual Allegations

On June 30, 1994, all fifteen barangay captains of Mapandan convened at the Session Hall of the Sangguniang Bayan to elect officers and directors of the Liga ng mga Barangay of Mapandan.
Thelma Quinto and six co-defendants walked out and boycotted the election, while the eight remaining captains proceeded to hold the election.
On June 30, 1994, Loreto Aquino was recognized as elected President of the Liga ng mga Barangay of Mapandan through an official notification by the DILG.
On July 21, 1994, Alex David recalled the certificate of confirmation issued to Loreto Aquino after review allegedly revealed absence of requisite signatures of representatives of DILG, COMELEC, and DECS.
Due to an alleged failure of the election of officers, the Liga Board through its President appointed Thelma Quinto as President on September 20, 1994.
Thelma Quinto filed with the DILG a “Petition for Declaration of Nullity of election of Barangay Captain Loreto Aquino as ABC President.”
In response, Loreto Aquino and co-plaintiffs filed Civil Case No. 94-00321-D for “Declaration of Nullity of Appointments, Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order, Injunction and Damages.”
The RTC granted a temporary restraining order on October 4, 1994 and later denied the application for a writ of preliminary injunction on October 25, 1994, lifting the temporary restraining order.
On January 6, 1995, after reconsideration, the RTC denied reconsideration, lifted restraints, and ordered that Thelma Quinto be allowed to assume office and draw salary starting September 28, 1994 when she took her oath.
Execution was attempted through a writ issued to implement the orders, but the sheriff’s return in July 7, 1995 reported it as “unsatisfied.”
Thelma Quinto then sought an alias writ, which the RTC granted on July 28, 1995, leading her to report for work as a member of the Sangguniang Bayan.
Despite the RTC orders, petitioners refused to allow her entry into the municipal session hall, and she held office at the corridors.
Loreto Aquino continued discharging duties as the elected President of the Liga and also served as an ex-officio member of the Sangguniang Bayan.
The RTC later ordered payment-related relief by directing officials to pay salary of ABC President Thelma Quinto from September 28, 1994 up to the present, following the grant of an alias writ on September 18, 1996.
On October 30, 1996, Thelma Quinto sought mandamus in the Court of Appeals after continued refusal to satisfy and enforce the writs.
Meanwhile, the RTC recalled and set aside the alias writ on November 6, 1996 and denied reconsideration on December 18, 1996, leading to further appellate proceedings.

RTC Orders on Injunction and Execution

On October 4, 1994, the RTC issued a temporary restraining order in Civil Case No. 94-00321-D.
On October 25, 1994, the RTC denied the application for a writ of preliminary injunction for lack of merit and lifted the temporary restraining order.
The RTC found, among other points, that plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
The RTC also found a pending case in the DILG Provincial Office involving the same subject matter between Loreto Aquino and Thelma Quinto.
The RTC ruled that, except for Loreto Aquino, the other plaintiffs lacked legal personality because they were allegedly not real parties in interest.
The RTC concluded that there was a failure of elections for the Liga ng mga Barangay in Mapandan and that the appointment/designation of defendants was valid under Sec. 3, Art. IX of the revised implementing rules and guidelines for the General Elections of Liga ng mga Barangay officers.
The RTC stated that plaintiffs had no clear and positive right warranting preliminary injunctive relief and held that the defendants had qualified and were prepared to assume office.
The RTC later denied reconsideration on January 6, 1995, ordered Thelma Quinto to assume office and draw salary from September 28, 1994, and ruled there was no legal impediment to her assumption.
After a sheriff’s return of unsatisfied, the RTC granted an alias writ on July 28, 1995.
On September 18, 1996, upon the urgent motion context, the RTC granted an alias writ and directed municipal officials to pay the salary of A