GR 145466; (July, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 145466. July 7, 2004
ZAMBOANGA BARTER GOODS RETAILERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (ZAMBAGORA), represented by its president, HADJI MAHMUD GUMAMPANG, petitioner, vs. HON. MARIA CLARA L. LOBREGAT in her capacity as Mayor of Zamboanga City and HON. ERNESTO R. GUTIERREZ, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Zamboanga City, respondents.
FACTS
The petitioner association, composed of barter-traders, was allowed by the Zamboanga City government in 1994 to occupy a reclaimed area. After a fire, the city issued a building permit for a one-storey building on the site, which the petitioner’s members occupied, paying monthly rentals and realty taxes. In 1998, the respondent city government decided to construct a city fire station on the property and requested the petitioner to vacate. Despite several extensions, the petitioner failed to relocate.
On October 18, 2000, the City Mayor gave a final extension until October 31, 2000. The petitioner, through counsel, demanded adequate compensation for its building improvements before vacating. The city took no action on this demand. Consequently, the petitioner filed a complaint for injunction with a prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or writ of preliminary injunction in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to prevent its eviction.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner’s application for a TRO or writ of preliminary injunction.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. A writ of preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable injury. For its issuance, the applicant must establish a clear and unmistakable right to be protected. The Court found that the petitioner failed to prove such a right.
The petitioner’s occupancy was merely by tolerance of the city government. The payment of business permit fees and realty taxes did not create a vested right to remain on the property, especially against the city’s need to use the land for a public purpose—the construction of a fire station as mandated by law. The city’s ownership and the public necessity for the fire station outweighed the petitioner’s business interests. Since no clear legal right was established, the RTC correctly denied the injunctive relief. The petition was dismissed.