FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 194672. March 6, 2019.]
PHILIPPINE POSTAL SAVINGS BANK, INC., petitioner, vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HONORABLE LABOR ARBITER, NLRC, REGIONAL ARBITRATION BRANCH NO. V, LEGASPI CITY, THE HONORABLE COMMISSION SEVENTH DIVISION, NLRC, AND SALVADOR Z. DEL ROSARIO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 6, 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 194672 (PHILIPPINE POSTAL SAVINGS BANK, INC., Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HONORABLE LABOR ARBITER, NLRC, REGIONAL ARBITRATION BRANCH NO. V, LEGASPI CITY, THE HONORABLE COMMISSION SEVENTH DIVISION, NLRC, and SALVADOR Z. DEL ROSARIO, Respondents.) — After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to DISMISS the petition for certiorari challenging the resolutions dated September 24, 2010 1 and October 26, 2010 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 114624 denying petitioner's prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and motion for reconsideration, respectively.
Herein petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, a limited form of review 3 which under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court shall be restricted to rectification of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. 4 As such, the petition must allege the facts showing that the tribunal, board, or officer had acted without or in excess, or with grave abuse of discretion, with prayer that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board, or officer. 5 If the petitioner does not allege that the order complained of was outside or in excess of jurisdiction or was issued with grave abuse of discretion of public respondent, the writ will not issue. 6
A cursory reading of the present petition shows that it did not contain any averment that the CA had "committed grave abuse of discretion," or had acted "without jurisdiction" or "in excess of jurisdiction.'' The petitioner only mentioned grave abuse of discretion in the preliminary statement on the nature of the petition, 7 but the issues and the subsequent discussions mainly pertained to the propriety of the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. However, a petition for certiorari is not the proper remedy to review the intrinsic correctness of the public respondent's ruling. Thus, whether the CA committed errors in the proceedings, misappreciated the facts, or misapplied the law is beyond our power of review in certiorari proceedings. 8 CAIHTE
Aside from this procedural lapse, We find no reason to reverse the CA.
To be entitled to an injunctive writ, the following requisites must be present: (1) the existence of a clear and unmistakable right that must be protected, and (2) an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. This Court has likewise stressed that the very foundation of the jurisdiction to issue a writ of injunction rests in the existence of a cause of action and in the probability of irreparable injury, inadequacy of pecuniary compensation and the prevention of multiplicity of suits. 9
The CA had correctly observed that the petitioner failed to show that it would suffer damages incapable of pecuniary estimation. On the contrary, any damage that the petitioner may incur on account of the enforcement of the writ of execution issued by the LA would have been susceptible of mathematical computation. In Heirs of Yu v. Court of Appeals, 10 we have explained that:
It is settled that a writ of preliminary injunction should be issued only to prevent grave and irreparable injury, that is, injury that is actual, substantial, and demonstrable. Here, there is no "irreparable injury" as understood in law. Rather, the damages alleged by the petitioner, namely, "immense loss in profit and possible damage claims from clients" and the cost of the billboard which is "a considerable amount of money" is easily quantifiable, and certainly does not fall within the concept of irreparable damage or injury as described in Social Security Commission v. Bayona:
Damages are irreparable within the meaning of the rule relative to the issuance of injunction where there is no standard by which their amount can be measured with reasonable accuracy. "An irreparable injury which a court of equity will enjoin includes that degree of wrong of a repeated and continuing kind which produce hurt, inconvenience, or damage that can be estimated only by conjecture, and not by any accurate standard of measurement." x x x
Here, any damage petitioner may suffer is easily subject to mathematical computation and, if proven, is fully compensable by damages. 11 (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted.)
Also, the grant or denial of a writ of preliminary injunction in a pending case rests on the sound discretion of the court taking cognizance of the case; the assessment and evaluation of evidence towards that end involves findings of fact left to that court's conclusive determination. Hence, the exercise of judicial discretion by a court in injunctive matters must not be interfered with, except when there is grave abuse of discretion. 12
Here, there is no showing that the CA issued the assailed resolutions in an arbitrary manner or that the application for preliminary injunction was denied because of passion or hostility against petitioner. The CA adequately discussed its justifications for its denial of petitioner's prayer for injunctive relief in the said resolutions; specifically, (1) petitioner's failure to prove irreparable injury and (2) the fact that petitioner's arguments are inextricably intertwined with the merits of the main petition. Considering that there were sufficient bases for denying petitioner's application for preliminary injunction, there is no cause to charge the CA with grave abuse of discretion in its issuance of the Resolutions dated September 24, 2010 and October 26, 2010. For the extraordinary writ of certiorari to lie, there must be capricious, arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power. 13 Such is absent in this case.
Finally, every court should remember that an injunction should not be granted lightly or precipitately because it is a limitation upon the freedom of the parties' action. It should be granted only when the court is fully satisfied that the law permits it and the emergency demands it. 14
ACCORDINGLY, We DISMISS the present petition for certiorari; and AFFIRM the resolutions dated September 24, 2010 and October 26, 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 114624 entitled "Philippine Postal Savings Bank, Inc. v. The Honorable Labor Arbiter, National Labor Relations Commission, Regional Arbitration Branch V, Legaspi City, The Honorable Commission, Seventh Division, National Labor Relations Commission and Salvador Z. del Rosario." DETACa
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 23-24; penned by Court of Appeals Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, with former Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. (now a Member of this Court) and Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion, concurring.
2.Id. at 26-28.
3.Home Development Mutual Fund v. Spouses See, G.R. No. 170292, June 22, 2011, 652 SCRA 478, 488.
4.Local Water Utilities Administration Employees Association for Progress v. Local Water Utilities Administration, G.R. Nos. 206808-09, September 7, 2016, 802 SCRA 357, 366.
5.Santos v. Cruz, G.R. Nos. 170096-97, March 3, 2006, 484 SCRA 66, 73.
6.See, Icasiano v. Tan, G.R. No. L-2168, October 31, 1949, 84 Phil. 860, 862.
7.Rollo, p. 4.
8.See, Spouses Aldover v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 167174, September 23, 2013, 706 SCRA 188, 207.
9.Philippine National Bank v. RJ Ventures Realty & Development Corporation, G.R. No. 164548, September 27, 2006, 503 SCRA 639, 659-660.
10.Heirs of Yu v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 182371, September 4, 2013, 705 SCRA 84.
11.Id. at 101-102.
12.Spouses Dela Rosa v. Heirs of Valdez, G.R. No. 159101, July 27, 2011, 654 SCRA 467, 480.
13.Brizuela v. Dingle, G.R. No. 175371, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 662, 676.
14.Almeida v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159124, January 17, 2005, 448 SCRA 681, 695-696.