ChanRobles Virtual law Library

SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 8 2003 .

G.R. No. 126371 (Jaime Bustamante and Salvacion Ababan Bustamante vs. Court of Appeals, Hon. Renato A. Fuentes, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 17, Victoria P. Vda. De Ababan, Teresita P. Ababan, Evelyn P. Ababan-Adlawan, Narcisa P. Ababan, Anita Ababan and Norberto Paralisan, in his capacity as deputy sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 17.)

On 17 April 2002, the Court promulgated a Decision ("Decision") on the petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioners Jaime and Salvacion Bustamante ("petitioners"). The petition assailed the Court of Appeals' Decision of 30 April 1996 in CA-G.R. SP No. 37983 upholding the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 17, in Civil Case No. 23078-94. The dispositive portion of our Decision stated:

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 30, 1996 in C.A. G.R. SP No. 37983 is hereby MODIFIED. The assailed Orders dated April 24, 1995 and June 15, 1995, and the writ of preliminary injunction dated May 10, 1995, issued by the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 17, in Civil Case No. 23078-94 are AFFIRMED to the extent that they restrain petitioners from performing any of the following acts:

1. Making any improvements on the Lot and Buildings;

2. Entering into any contract for the disposition of any portion of the Lot and Buildings in favor of third parties; and

3. Doing any act or acts prejudicial to the rights and interests of private respondents over the Lot and Buildings.

However, that portion of the assailed Orders and writ of preliminary injunction directing petitioners to pay rent to private respondents, and transferring to private respondents the right to collect rentals from lessees of the Buildings, is SET ASIDE. Petitioners shall not pay rent for the use of their residence but shall deposit with the trial court all collections of rentals from lessees of the Buildings. The Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 17, is directed to proceed with the hearing of Civil Case No. 23078-94.

SO ORDERED. ^[1] cralaw

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration ^[2] cralaw ("Motion") asking the Court to modify its Decision. In the Motion, petitioners informed the Court for the first time that the trial court had already rendered a Decision in Civil Case No. 23078-94 ("RTC Decision") as far back as in 13 June 1997. Petitioners alleged that the case is currently pending on appeal before the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 60378. Petitioners did not attach a copy of the RTC Decision. The Motion was also bereft of any details or description of the RTC Decision.

In response to a Resolution ^[3] cralaw of this Court dated 2 December 2002, private respondents submitted a certified copy of the RTC Decision. After trial on the merits, the trial court found for private respondents and issued a final injunction against petitioners, to wit:

WHEREFORE, finding the evidence of plaintiffs more than sufficient to prove by preponderance of evidence their claims and causes of action against the defendants, decision is rendered in favor of the plaintiffs Victoria P. Vda. de Ababan, Teresita P. Ababan, Evelyn P. Ababan Adlawan, Narcisa P. Ababan and Nenita P. Ababan, and against defendants Jaime Bustamante and Salvacion Ababan Bustamante, ordering the latter to pay the plaintiffs, the following:

a) To pay to plaintiffs a monthly rental of P8,000.00 for the use and enjoyment of the building in question computed from the filing of this case against the defendants;

b) To pay plaintiffs the amount of P50,000.00 by way of moral damages;

c) And reasonable attorney's fees, in the amount of P20,000.00.

Plaintiffs' claim for exemplary damages however, is denied for lack of factual and legal basis.

Moreover, the writ of preliminary injunction issued in this case, is made permanent, with costs against defendants.

SO ORDERED. ^[4] cralaw (emphasis supplied)

Private respondents explained that they did not inform the Court of the RTC Decision as it never became final. The RTC Decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals. Private respondents also manifested that the Court of Appeals had rendered a Decision on 22 April 2003 affirming the RTC Decision. According to them, the appellate court's decision is the subject of a motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners.

In the assailed Decision, this Court expressly limited its discussion of issues to "the questioned writ of preliminary injunction and not with the merits of the civil case still pending with the trial court." ^[5] cralaw It is clear that the Court ruled only on the validity of the preliminary injunction. The Decision thus has no bearing on the RTC Decision or on the trial court's issuance of a final injunction. These issues were not raised in the case and were not passed upon by the Court.

A writ of preliminary injunction is an ancillary remedy which may be issued by a court at any stage of an action prior to judgment. ^[6] cralaw As we explained in the Decision, a preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy, an adjunct to the main case subject to the latter's outcome. ^[7] cralaw Proceedings for preliminary injunction cannot stand separately or proceed independently of the decision rendered on the merits of the main case for injunction. ^[8] cralaw This holds true regardless of whether the RTC Decision is still on appeal before the Court of Appeals. The Court has held that the issuance of a final injunction renders any question on the preliminary injunctive order moot and academic even if the decision granting a final injunction is pending appeal. ^[9] cralaw The RTC Decision, promulgated a few months after petitioners filed their petition for review before this Court, rendered the latter moot.

These doctrines are clear and settled in jurisprudence. Indeed, these were precisely the arguments petitioners raised in their Motion. We are puzzled, therefore, by the failure of petitioners and even of private respondents, who opposed the petition questioning the writ of preliminary injunction, to bring the RTC Decision to the attention of the Court earlier. Either counsel for petitioners, Atty. Carlos A. Cadiente, ^[10] cralaw or counsel for private respondents, Atty. Jose C. Estrada, could have easily filed a manifestation, with a motion to allow the same, informing the Court of the RTC Decision and attaching certified true copies of the said decision. Perhaps counsels were hoping that a decision of this Court would somehow favor the cause of their respective clients then pending before the trial court, and now before the Court of Appeals. Certainly, it would have lead to the swift denial of petitioners' appeal before this Court.

Counsels are reminded that a lawyer should not be concerned solely with the cause of his clients. Although a lawyer should defend his client's interests with zeal, he also owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court. ^[11] cralaw As an officer of the court, a lawyer must exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. ^[12] cralaw Considering the clogged dockets of the judiciary, lawyers should perform this duty with greater fidelity.

In the present case, counsels failed to apprise this Court of the RTC Decision for almost five years. Whether this is merely negligence or deliberate on their part, counsels were remiss in their duty under Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. ^[13] cralaw

WHEREFORE, the Court's Decision of 17 April 2002 in G.R. No. 126371 is MODIFIED. In view of the final injunction issued by the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 17, in its Decision dated 13 June 1997 in Civil Case No. 23078-94, the petition for review on certiorari assailing the Court of Appeal's Decision of 30 April 1996 in CA-G.R. SP No. 37983, is DENIED.

Atty. Carlos A. Cadiente and Atty. Jose C. Estrada are ADMONISHED to adhere strictly to Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility in the future.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.)JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court