SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242485. November 12, 2018.]
MIKE YAO AND BLANDINO MARBID, petitioners, vs.RENE S. SANCHEZ, HERMINIO SANCHEZ, AND HEIRS OF ALBERT S. SANCHEZ, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. ANGELO ALBERT T. SANCHEZ, AND MARIETTA E. CRUZ AND CONRADO E. ESPIRITU, JR., REPRESENTED BY CONRADO S. ESPIRITU III, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 12 November 2018 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242485 (Mike Yao and Blandino Marbid v. Rene S. Sanchez, Herminio Sanchez, and Heirs of Albert S. Sanchez, represented by Atty. Angelo Albert T. Sanchez, and Marietta E. Cruz and Conrado E. Espiritu, Jr., represented by Conrado S. Espiritu III)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the present petition for review on certiorari1 taken under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court for being the wrong remedy to assail the September 14, 2017 2 and September 26, 2018 3 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 151377, the proper remedy being a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the same Rules, considering that the assailed Resolutions are mere interlocutory orders that did not dispose of the main case on the merits.
In any event, even if the Court were to treat the present petition as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, the Court nonetheless finds no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA in rendering the assailed Resolutions. For a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction to issue, the following requisites must be present: (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. 4 Moreover, an injunctive remedy may only be resorted to when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences which cannot be remedied under any standard compensation. 5 As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioners Mike Yao and Blandino Marbid failed to show any clear legal right to be protected or that there is an urgent need for a writ to prevent serious damage to them. 6 Being mere caretakers 7 of the subject property, the Court finds no irreparable injury that petitioners may sustain if no TRO or writ of preliminary injunction issues herein. Accordingly, the instant petition must be dismissed. HEITAD
SO ORDERED." (REYES, J., JR., J., designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-14.
2.Id. at 20-24. Penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios with Associate Justices Edwin D. Sorongon and Renato C. Francisco, concurring.
3.Id. at 26-28. Penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios with Japar B. Dimaampao and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, concurring.
4.Ermita v. Aldecoa-Delorino, 666 Phil. 122, 136-137 (2011).
5.Transfield Philippines, Inc. v. Luzon Hydro Corporation, 485 Phil. 699, 726 (2004).
6. See rollo, p. 23.
7. See Urgent Motion for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Status Quo dated August 18, 2017; id. at 54.