ChanRobles Virtual law Library

SECOND DIVISION

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEP 28 2005 .

G.R. No. 153785 ( Veronique T. Huibonhoa vs. Angel D. Concepcion .)

This is an appeal via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure of the March 12, 2002 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 65718, entitled "Veronique T. Huibonhoa vs. Hon. Raymundo Z. Annang," and its May 27, 2002 Resolution denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration of said Decision . The CA Decision dismissed on the grounds of prematurity and forum shopping Huibonhoa's petition for certiorari assailing the twin orders issued by Judge Annang in his capacity as Vice Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Cabanatuan City. Said orders were issued in connection with the complaint for Accounting and Damages with Preliminary Injunction and Preliminary Mandatory Injunction (Temporary Restraining Order) filed by respondent Concepcion against petitioner Huibonhoa. The complaint docketed as Civil Case No. 4065-AF, was subsequently raffled to Branch 28, the branch designated to decide cases formerly cognizable by the Securities & Exchange Commission, of the RTC of Cabanatuan City.

The July 13, 2001 Order of Judge Annang directed the issuance of a temporary restraining order effective for seventy-two (72) hours, restraining petitioner from discharging her functions as manager of the Poulex Supermarket. The pertinent portion of the Order reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, temporary restraining order is hereby issued effective for seventy two hours from this order restraining and prohibiting defendant Veronique T. Huibonhoa from occupying and performing her position as Manager of the Poulex Supermarket and from suppressing, concealing and falsifying the records; and, further, said defendant is hereby ordered to submit formal turn-over of all cash records accruing for the business operation of the Poulex Supermarket for the period of, from November, 2000 up to the present. Further, defendant Sphinx Security Agency is hereby ordered to allow the plaintiff or his authorized representative/s to enter the Poulex Supermarket as Director of the CHAS, Inc., among others, until further orders from this Court. Likewise, Sphinx Security Agency is hereby restrained from interfering and/or preventing the implementation of the orders of Angel D. Concepcion, Sr. in his capacity as Chairman-President of CHAS, Inc.

In his Order dated July 16, 2001, Judge Annang declared the expiration of the temporary restraining order but upheld the continuous closure of the supermarket, thus:

For being meritorious, it is hereby declared that the seventy-two (72) hour TRO effective for only seventy-two hours from its issuance has already expired on July 16, 2001 at 5:00 p.m.

Considering the fact that the Poulex Supermarket had already been padlocked on July 16, 2001 after 5:00 P.M. according to the said motion and manifestation of defendant Veronique T. Huibonhoa, the same should remain closed in the interest of justice and in order not to create further confusion. Anyway, this case will be raffled tomorrow, July 18, 2001 at 10:00 A.M. in accordance with the Rules.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Huibonhoa's petition for certiorari assailing the twin orders of Judge Annang on the grounds of prematurity and forum shopping. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

Ultimately, the issue for this Court's resolution hinges on the propriety of the issuance of the seventy-two-hour restraining order and its extension, as suggested by petitioner, through the issuance of the July 16, 2001 Order . Since under Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a temporary restraining order granted ex-parte is effective only for seventy-two (72) hours or, if extended after summary hearing, shall not exceed twenty (20) days from the date of issuance, the temporary restraining order issued by Judge Annang would automatically expire on the twentieth day by sheer force of law, no judicial declaration to that effect being necessary. ¹ Assuming that the issuance of the temporary restraining order is valid, it appears that the same should have been dissolved upon the expiration of the twenty (20)-day period. Thus, after the lapse of eight (8) months, the temporary restraining order became functus officio upon the promulgation of the Court of Appeals decision. Obviously, petitioner no longer had any cause of action to institute the instant petition.

In view of the foregoing , petitioner Veronique Huibonhoa is hereby DIRECTED to SHOW CAUSE why the instant petition should not be dismissed for being moot and academic, within ten (10) days from receipt of notice.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG

Clerk of Court