December 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > December 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 194321 : December 01, 2010] SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES, ET AL. V. MA. JOPETTE M. REBESENCIO, ET AL. :
[G.R. No. 194321 : December 01, 2010]
SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES, ET AL. V. MA. JOPETTE M. REBESENCIO, ET AL.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 01 December 2010 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 194321 (Saudi Arabian Airlines, et al. v. Ma. Jopette M. Rebesencio, et al.). - Before this Court is a Petition for Certiorari with Urgent Application for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction,[1] assailing the Resolution[2] issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) dated September 9, 2010, which denied petitioners' similar motion for the issuance of a TRO or an lnjunctive Writ on the ground that the case, particularly docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 113006, was already deemed submitted for decision, and that the issues relative to the said motion would be resolved together with the main petition.
We dismiss the Petition for lack of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA since there is a marked absence of any urgent necessity for the issuance of a TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction.[3]
Suffice it to state that no writ of execution has yet been issued by the Labor Arbiter (LA) in this case. Respondents have only filed a motion for the issuance thereof. The LA has not ruled on the motion. Just as there exists the possibility that the LA shall grant respondents' motion, there also exists the possibility that the LA shall deny the same. Evidently, petitioners' application for a TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction is, as of yet, based on purely speculative grounds and already assumes that the LA would grant respondents' motion and issue a writ of execution. Of the same nature as an injunction, a TRO is not designed to protect contingent or future rights; the possibility of irreparable damage without proof of actual existing right is not a ground for the issuance thereof.[4]
Nevertheless, it behooves the LA to accord the CA a measure of judicial respect and courtesy inasmuch as the main case involving the parties herein has already been submitted for decision before the CA.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DISMISSED, and the Court of Appeals is hereby DIRECTED to resolve the case, particularly docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 113006, with dispatch. The Labor Arbiter is ADVISED to observe judicial courtesy and await the Court of Appeals Decision. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 194321 (Saudi Arabian Airlines, et al. v. Ma. Jopette M. Rebesencio, et al.). - Before this Court is a Petition for Certiorari with Urgent Application for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction,[1] assailing the Resolution[2] issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) dated September 9, 2010, which denied petitioners' similar motion for the issuance of a TRO or an lnjunctive Writ on the ground that the case, particularly docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 113006, was already deemed submitted for decision, and that the issues relative to the said motion would be resolved together with the main petition.
We dismiss the Petition for lack of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA since there is a marked absence of any urgent necessity for the issuance of a TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction.[3]
Suffice it to state that no writ of execution has yet been issued by the Labor Arbiter (LA) in this case. Respondents have only filed a motion for the issuance thereof. The LA has not ruled on the motion. Just as there exists the possibility that the LA shall grant respondents' motion, there also exists the possibility that the LA shall deny the same. Evidently, petitioners' application for a TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction is, as of yet, based on purely speculative grounds and already assumes that the LA would grant respondents' motion and issue a writ of execution. Of the same nature as an injunction, a TRO is not designed to protect contingent or future rights; the possibility of irreparable damage without proof of actual existing right is not a ground for the issuance thereof.[4]
Nevertheless, it behooves the LA to accord the CA a measure of judicial respect and courtesy inasmuch as the main case involving the parties herein has already been submitted for decision before the CA.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DISMISSED, and the Court of Appeals is hereby DIRECTED to resolve the case, particularly docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 113006, with dispatch. The Labor Arbiter is ADVISED to observe judicial courtesy and await the Court of Appeals Decision. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo,pp. 3-25.
[2] Id. at 45-46.
[3] Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 166859, June 26, 2006, 492 SCRA 747, 750-751.
[4]Brizuela v. Dingle, G.R. No. 175371, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 662, 674-675, citing Heirs of Asuncion v. Gervacio, Jr., 363 Phil. 666, 674 (1999).
