ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 141936.
BENJAMIN SY Y CHUA, ARTURO SY, AND ROSARIO SY, PETITIONERS, v. HON. BIENVENIDO L. REYES IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 74 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MALABON AND ADELA SY, RESPONDENTS
Third Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of the
Third Division of this Court dated
G.R. No. 141936 (Benjamin Sy y Chua, Arturo Sy, and Rosario Sy, petitioners, v. Hon. Bienvenido L. Reyes in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of Branch 74 of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon and ADELA SY, respondents.)
Before the Court is a petition for review assailing the
The facts are as follows:
On
The case was initially raffled to Branch 169 of the Regional
Trial Court of Malabon ("Branch 169"). In his Order of
On
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of
Appeals assailing Judge Reyes'
Hence, the petition before this Court.
The issue is whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in allowing the continuance of the hearing on the application for preliminary injunction.
The petition has no merit.
Petitioners seek to enjoin Judge Reyes from continuing with the trial on the application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. Petitioners argue that a hearing on the application for a writ of preliminary injunction will effectively dispose of the main case for injunction without trial. Petitioners further argue that a writ of preliminary injunction is not available when its purpose is to take the possession and control of a property from one person to place it in the hands of another person. Hence, Judge Reyes should not have entertained the application for a writ of preliminary injunction.
The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the petition for certiorari filed before it was premature. The act of Judge Reyes in setting for hearing the application for a writ of preliminary injunction cannot be considered a disposition of the main case for injunction. Judge Reyes has yet to rule on whether to grant or deny the application for a writ of preliminary injunction. Since Judge Reyes may still deny the application for a writ of preliminary injunction, it is not proper for this Court to preempt Judge Reyes' action on the matter. It is also premature for this Court to rule on whether respondent availed of a wrong remedy in applying for a writ of preliminary injunction without awaiting Judge Reyes' ruling on the application.
Petitioners further allege that Judge Reyes committed grave abuse
of discretion in hearing the application for a writ of preliminary injunction because
the parties have agreed to hear the application for preliminary injunction
together with the main case for injunction. Petitioners allege that Judge Laurea failed to put the terms of the agreement in his
Finally, petitioners allege that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in sustaining Judge Reyes' denial of their motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action. Petitioners allege that there was no evidence that efforts toward a compromise between the parties have been made in accordance with Article 151 of the Family Code. [5] cralaw Petitioners argue that Arturo Tan and Ronato Tan's act of going to the factory premises, accompanied by security guards, could not be considered an effort towards a compromise. Further, Arturo Tan is not a member of the family since he is only respondent's common-law husband.
We do not agree. When Arturo Tan and Ronato Tan went to the factory premises to talk to petitioner Benjamin Sy, they were acting as respondent's representatives. They were accompanied by security guards because of the incident that happened a week before when Arturo Tan was allegedly attacked by Benjamin Sy and Arturo Sy. Benjamin Sy allegedly fired his handgun at Arturo Tan. The incident led to Arturo Tan's filing of charges against petitioners before the National Bureau of Investigation. Petitioners, on the other hand, charged Arturo Tan with Attempted Murder and Grave Threats before the Malabon Police. When Arturo Tan and Ronato Tan went to the factory premises, they were prevented from entering the premises and were threatened with bodily harm. Several policemen from the Malabon Police Station were allegedly inside the premises. Citing the incidents, respondent in her complaint stated that her efforts toward a compromise, through her representatives, have failed. Considering the animosity between petitioners and respondent, which resulted to physical violence and threats against respondent's representatives, it is too much to expect respondent to personally try to talk to petitioners again.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition and AFFIRM the
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Hector L. Hofile�a, with Associate Justices Demetrio G. Demetria and Omar U. Amin, concurring. Rollo , pp. 45-57.
[2] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Demetrio G. Demetria, with Associate Justices Ruben T. Reyes and Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., concurring. Id. at 59.
[3] cralaw Also referred to as Rosario Siy.
[4] cralaw Rollo , p. 29.
[5] cralaw Paragraph 1 of Article 151 states: No suit between members of the same family shall prosper unless it should appear from the verified complaint or petition that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, but that the same have failed. If it is shown that no such efforts were in fact made, the case must be dismissed.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
