ADVERTISEMENT
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 257058. September 29, 2021.]
NEW WORLD REALTY CORPORATION and JORGE MARQUES,petitioners, vs. FELIPE AÑASCO, SR., ANTONIO A. REYES, PATRICIA A. EMBLAMO, FELICIDAD A. BUHAYAN, FELIPE AÑASCO, JR., VIRGILIO AÑASCO, FAUSTINA AÑASCO, and MAGDALENA AVANCENA,respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 29, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 257058 (New World Realty Corporation and Jorge Marques v. Felipe Añasco, Sr., Antonio A. Reyes, Patricia A. Emblamo, Felicidad A. Buhayan, Felipe Añasco, Jr., Virgilio Añasco, Faustina Añasco, and Magdalena Avancena).— The petitioners' motion for an extension of fifteen (15) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari with urgent prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
We deny the petition.
Preliminarily, the Court notes that petitioners New World Realty Corporation and Jorge Marques availed of the wrong remedy. To recall, petitioners filed an appeal against the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals which denied their prayer for injunctive relief. Clearly, these Resolutions were mere interlocutory orders as CA-G.R. SP No. 09060-MIN remains pending before the appellate court. The remedy against an interlocutory order, however, is a special civil action under Rule 65, provided that said interlocutory order is rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, 1 not an appeal. On this ground alone, the petition should be denied outright.
Even if we treat the present petition as one for certiorari, the only issue we could resolve here is whether the Court of Appeals acted in grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners' prayer for injunctive relief. In other words, we are precluded from determining whether respondents ought to be faulted for petitioners' failure to convert the subject properties from agricultural to residential lots — an issue which remains pending in CA-G.R. SP No. 09060-MIN. For us to render a ruling on the issue now, would operate as a prejudgment of the main case. 2
At any rate, the Court of Appeals did not err in denying petitioners' prayer for injunctive relief. For a grant thereof, jurisprudence requires the following elements: 3
(1) The applicant must have a clear and unmistakable right to be protected, that is a right in esse;
(2) There is a material and substantial invasion of such right;
(3) There is an urgent need for the writ to prevent irreparable injury to the applicant; and
(4) No other ordinary, speedy, and adequate remedy exists to prevent the infliction of irreparable injury. (emphases added)
The first, third and fourth requirements are absent here.
First. Petitioners do not have a clear and unmistakable right which requires protection. On the contrary, their failure to convert the properties into residential lots within one (1) year from finality of CA-G.R. CV No. 03105-MIN is prima facie evidence that they no longer have the right to enforce the contracts they entered into with respondents.
Second. Petitioners' supposed injury is at best speculative. They simply assume that respondents would allow into the prospects innocent third persons into the subject properties, whom they would eject should they win in CA-G.R. SP No. 09060-MIN. In any event, the damage which petitioners claim they would suffer under this scenario is quantifiable in terms of rental payment (should respondents lease out the properties) or purchase price (in case of sale).
Finally, as the Court of Appeals keenly noted, petitioners still have other remedies available to prevent the subject properties from falling into the hands of innocent third persons. Considering that the subject properties are titled lands, petitioners may simply cause the proper annotations on OCT Nos. P-8426 and P-8423 to protect their supposed right. Such annotations would constitute notice to third persons who consequently would no longer be considered "innocent" parties should they obtain possession or ownership of the properties under litigation.
Failing to satisfy the requirements of injunctive relief, therefor the petition must be denied.
A final word. Counsel for both parties ought to be reminded of their bounden duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. 4 As lawyers, it is their responsibility to avoid causing delay and impeding the execution of a judgments. 5 Indeed, lawyers do not have unbridled right to file pleadings, motions, or cases as they please. For the indiscriminate filing of cases frustrates the administration of justice and degrades the dignity and integrity of the courts. 6
WHEREFORE, the present petition is DENIED and the Resolutions dated August 11, 2020 and April 13, 2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 09060-MIN are AFFIRMED.
Hon. Emmanuel Carpio, Presiding Judge, and Santi Julian G. Solomon, Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, Davao City, are DROPPED as party respondents in this case, pursuant to Sec. 4, Rule 45 of the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC).
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Pahila-Garrido v. Tortogo, 671 Phil. 320, 335 (2011).
2.Evy Construction and Dev't. Corp. v. Valiant Roll Forming Sales Corp., 820 Phil. 123, 138 (2017).
3.Bicol Medical Center v. Botor, 819 Phil. 447, 458 (2017).
4. Canon 12, Code of Professional Responsibility.
5. Canon 12, Rule 12.04, Code of Professional Responsibility.
6.Alpajora v. Calayan, 823 Phil. 93, 113 (2018).