Tan v. The Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay
This is a civil case decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines in 2013. The case involves petitioners Eusebio V. Tan and Eduardo V. Tan who sought to nullify the orders of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 111 denying their motions for daily continuous hearings, status quo order, and setting the case for further hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Regional Trial Court. The denial of the motion for status quo order was in order as its grant would be tantamount to an indefinite extension of the first TRO, which is proscribed by the rules and existing jurisprudence. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that neither grave abuse of discretion nor grave error attended the issuance of the Regional Trial Court's orders.
ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 203652. October 14, 2013.]
EUSEBIO V. TAN AND EDUARDO V. TAN, petitioners, vs. THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASAY CITY, BRANCH 111, JUDGE WILHELMINA B. JORGE-WAGAN, SUNJOY REALTY DEVELOPMENT, INC., PRIMERZONE REAL ESTATE CORPORATION, IRONCON BUILDERS AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, AND W. DIONISIO CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT AND TRADING, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 14 October 2013 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 203652 (Eusebio V. Tan and Eduardo V. Tan v. The Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 111, Judge Wilhelmina B. Jorge-Wagan, Sunjoy Realty Development, Inc., Primerzone Real Estate Corporation, Ironcon Builders and Development Corporation, and W. Dionisio Construction Development and Trading).
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the petition and AFFIRM the July 4, 2012 and September 25, 2012 Resolutions 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP. No. 124753 for failure of Eusebio V. Tan and Eduardo V. Tan (petitioners) to show that the CA committed any reversible error in finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 111 (RTC) in issuing the Orders (a) denying their motions for daily continuous hearings and status quo order; and (b) setting the case for further hearing.
Records show that public respondent Judge Wilhelmina B. Jorge-Wagan exerted efforts to expeditiously resolve petitioners' application for writ of preliminary injunction by the close setting of the hearing dates for the presentation of petitioners' witnesses, despite the volume of other equally important cases. The setting for further hearing is entirely discretionary on the part of the RTC, whose discretion in injunctive matters would not be interfered with absent manifest abuse, 2 as in this case. aIDHET
On the other hand, the denial of petitioners' motion for status quo order after the 20-day temporary restraining order (TRO) had expired was in order as its grant would be tantamount to an indefinite extension of the first TRO proscribed by the rules and extant jurisprudence. 3 Accordingly, neither grave abuse of discretion nor grave error attended the issuance of the RTC Orders. (Del Castillo, J., on official leave. Reyes, J., designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1564 dated October 11, 2013.)
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 130-134 and 135-136, respectively. Penned by Associate Justice Socorro B. Inting, with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Mario V. Lopez, concurring.
2. See Nerwin Industries Corporation v. PNOC-Energy Development Corporation, G.R. No. 167057, April 11, 2012, 669 SCRA 173, 188.
3. See Llamzon v. Logronio, 552 Phil. 748, 759 (2007).
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU