ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 170249. June 7, 2006]

SHEILA CORONEL vs. JUDGE RALPH S. LEE AND RONA V. TIONGCO

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUNE 7, 2006

G.R. No. 170249 (Sheila Coronel vs. Judge Ralph S. Lee and Rona V. Tiongco.)

Petitioner Sheila Coronel moves for reconsideration of the Resolution of the Court dated December 5, 2005 dismissing her petition for certiorari with temporary restraining order (TRO) of the order of respondent Judge Ralph S. Lee in Civil Case No. Q-05-56608, basically an action for mandamus with prayer for TRO commenced by herein private respondent Ma. Rona V. Tiongco against the petitioner before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 83.

The proceedings and antecedents against which the instant motion is cast may be summarized as follows:

Consequent to the public interest over the emergence and circulation of what is generally referred to as the "Garci Tapes" and the conflicting positions on the issue of authenticity assumed by interested parties, virtually each with their own voice/electronics/digital experts, the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), of which petitioner Coronel is the executive director, posted in its website www.pcij.org/blog/?P=314 an article entitled "Mike Defensor's Expert" written by Vinia Datingguinoo.

On the claim that the malicious article tended to besmirch the name and reputation of her husband, Jonathan Tiongco, the purported Defensor expert, respondent Rona Tiongco filed with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City a petition for mandamus with prayer for TRO against petitioner Coronel. Docketed as Civil Case No. Q-05-56608, the case was raffled to the sala of respondent judge. Following an exchange of pleadings, among which was a motion to dismiss the underlying Tiongco petition, the respondent judge issued on November 3, 2005 in Civil Case No. Q-05-56608 an Order embodying a TRO, effective for twenty (20) days, directing petitioner Coronel or her agents to remove/delete or block the Datinggguinoo article adverted to and setting Tiongco's application for writ of preliminary injunction for hearing on November 9 and 11, 2005.

On November 17, 2005, petitioner Coronel interposed this special civil action for certiorari to nullify the aforementioned November 3, 2005 Order of the respondent judge as well as his purported November 9, 2005 open court Order on the hearing of respondent Tiongco's application for a preliminary injunctive writ.

On December 5, 2005, the Court issued a Resolution dismissing this petition for certiorari for being premature, no motion for reconsideration having been filed with the respondent court and no sufficient allegations have been made to bring the case within recognized exceptions.

The factual and legal situations since the Court issued its Resolution subject of the instant motion for reconsideration have not changed, except that the 20-day effectivity period of the assailed TRO had already lapsed. Accordingly, the Court perceives no compelling reason to disturb its Resolution and excepts petitioner from the well-established rule that before certiorari may be availed of, the petitioner must have filed a motion for reconsideration so as to allow the lower court to pass upon and correct its mistakes, if any, without the intervention of the higher court. ^[1] cralaw While several exceptions obtain where the special civil action for certiorari will lie even without the filing of a motion for reconsideration, ^[2] cralaw none of the recognized exceptions cited by petitioner appear to be indubitable. To be sure, the respondent judge's statement in his Order of November 3, 2005 that his issuance of the TRO should not be construed as indicating his inclination insofar as the propriety of a writ of preliminary injunction argues against any suggestion of bias or that a motion for reconsideration would be useless.

As a final consideration, there appears to be no necessity for the issuance of a TRO, as presently urged by petitioner Coronel, as her interests are no longer threatened by the expired restraining order earlier issued by the respondent judge.

WHEREFORE, the instant motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHl YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw PNCC vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 112629, July 7, 1995, 245 SCRA 668.

^[2] cralaw Marawi Marantao Gen. Hospital Inc. vs. CA, G.R. No. 141008, Jan 16, 2001 , 349 SCRA 321, citing cases.

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011