THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 229014. March 6, 2017.]
DADIANGAS WEST CENTRAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS COOPERATIVE, Represented by its Chairman — ORLANDO O. PADASAY, petitioner,vs. ANTONIO C. LUBAO, former Judge of RTC-Branch 22, and DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, REGION XII, represented by its REGIONAL DIRECTOR, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 6, 2017, which reads as follows: HESIcT
"G.R. No. 229014 — DADIANGAS WEST CENTRAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS COOPERATIVE, Represented by its Chairman — ORLANDO O. PADASAY, Petitioner v. ANTONIO C. LUBAO, former Judge of RTC-Branch 22, and DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, REGION XII, represented by its REGIONAL DIRECTOR, Respondents.
Petitioner Dadiangas West Central Elementary School Teachers Cooperative (DWCESTC), a duly registered cooperative whose primary purpose is to operate or provide pre-school education, entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on November 19, 1998 with respondent Department of Education (DepEd), Division of General Santos City, wherein DWCESTC would be the service provider of DepEd pursuant to DECS Memorandum Order No. 373. 1 Subsequently, DWCESTC constructed a classroom within the premises of the Dadiangas West Elementary School for its initial operation. On May 17, 1999, the Principal of Dadiangas West Elementary School entered into another MOA to turn over the management and control of the pre-school program to DWCESTC. 2
On May 7, 2008, the new Principal of Dadiangas West Elementary School halted the enrollment for the pre-school program and announced that the services of DWCESTC had already ceased. This prompted DWCESTC to file an action for injunction against the new Principal in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in General Santos City (Branch 37), docketed as Civil Case No. 7805. 3 The RTC issued a status quo ante order.
DepEd also filed its own injunction suit against DWCESTC in the RTC in General Santos City (Branch 22), docketed as Special Civil Case No. 687, to enjoin DWCESTC from conducting pre-school education services until the necessary permits and requirements had been obtained and complied with. 4
Eventually, the RTC Branch 22 issued several orders in Special Civil Case No. 687, specifically: (a) the order dated March 24, 2010 issuing the temporary restraining order (TRO) directing DWCESTC to cease and desist from accepting new enrollees for its pre-education program; 5 (b) the May 13, 2010 order to issue the writ of preliminary injunction applied for; 6 (c) the October 28, 2010 order denying DWCESTC's motion for reconsideration, and ruling that DWCESTC's operation lasted only until school year 2009-2010; 7 (d) the March 16, 2011 order issuing the writ of preliminary injunction after DepEd manifested that DWCESTC continued to operate its pre-education program, and setting the injunction bond at P1,000,000.00; 8 and (e) the April 29, 2011 order amending the March 12, 2011 order to exempt DepEd from posting the injunction bond. 9
Via petition for certiorari, DWCESTC challenged all the said orders of the RTC Branch 22 in the Court of Appeals (CA), except that of March 24, 2010.
In the assailed decision promulgated on September 09, 2015, 10 the CA dismissed DWCESTC's petition for certiorari, holding that DWCESTC did not show that it had been issued the necessary permits to continue its operations as a service provider of pre-school education; that the RTC did not abuse its discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction; that the exemption of DepEd from filing the injunction bond was correct; and that the pendency of Civil Case No. 7805 in the RTC Branch 37 did not negate the efficacy of the writ of injunction issued by the RTC Branch 22 because there was no identity of parties and subject matter considering that the action in the RTC Branch 37 involved the school Principal alone and the act to be enjoined was the enrollment, while the action in the RTC Branch 22 involved DepEd and the act to be enjoined was the entirety of the pre-school operations. 11
Hence, this appeal, whereby DWCESTC assails the decision of the CA for upholding the issuance of the writ of injunction at the instance of DepEd. 12
DWCESTC asserts that the writ of preliminary injunction was illegally issued for lack of hearing and bond; that the action of DepEd should be dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia by virtue of the injunction suit pending in the RTC Branch 37; and that the RTC Branch 22 should not have issued the writ of preliminary injunction because it was contrary to the status quo ante order issued by the RTC Branch 37, and thus violated the doctrine of judicial stability. 13
Did the RTC Branch 22 err in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction against DWCESTC?
Ruling of the Court
The Court RESOLVES TO DENY the petition for review on certiorari for failure of the petitioner to show any reversible error committed by the CA to warrant the exercise of the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction. caITAC
Contrary to the claim of the petitioner, the RTC Branch 22 conducted hearings on the application for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction. As to the lack of injunction bond, the RTC Branch 22 did not err in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction even without the injunction bond. Under the Rules of Court, said court could validly exempt DepEd from posting the injunction bond. Specifically, Section 4 (b), Rule 58 of the Rules of Court pertinently states:
Sec. 4. Verified application and bond for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. — xxxx:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) Unless exempted by the court, the applicant files with the court where the action or proceeding is pending, a bond executed to the party or person enjoined, in an amount to be fixed by the court, to the effect that the applicant will pay to such party or person all damages which he may sustain by reason of the injunction or temporary restraining order if the court should finally decide that the applicant was not entitled thereto. Upon approval of the requisite bond, a writ of preliminary injunction shall be issued. (4a) (Bold emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
We further rule that DepEd's action in the RTC Branch 22 was not barred by litis pendentia because there was no identity of parties and reliefs between the two actions.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari for lack of merit; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the costs of suit. (Jardeleza, J., no part, due to his prior action as Solicitor General; Leonen, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated March 1, 2017.) (Reyes, J., on wellness leave.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 132.
2.Id.
3.Id. at 83.
4.Id. at 52.
5.Id. at 72.
6.Id. at 73.
7.Id. at 74.
8.Id. at 75.
9.Id. at 53.
10. Id. at 30-36; penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos, with the concurrence of Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello and Associate Justice Edgardo T. Lloren.
11. Id. at 34-35.
12. Id. at 3-24.
13. Id. at 7-8.