G.R. No. 113235 July 24, 1997
Victoria Medina, Virginia Vinuya, Anselmo Yabot and Salvacion Mendoza, petitioners, vs. City Sheriff, Manila and Spouses Justino V. Jimenez and Aurora Rueda Jimenez, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent spouses Justino and Aurora Jimenez, owners of a parcel of land in Tondo, Manila, filed an unlawful detainer suit against petitioners, who were their lessees. On January 2, 1992, the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila rendered a decision in favor of the Jimenez spouses, ordering petitioners to vacate the premises and pay attorney’s fees and costs. Unknown to petitioners, the Jimenez spouses had earlier sold the subject property to spouses Ernesto and Rose Concepcion on October 14, 1990. After the ejectment case was initiated, the Jimenez spouses filed a complaint for annulment of the deed of sale, which was dismissed by the Regional Trial Court. The Court of Appeals later dismissed the Jimenezes’ appeal. Petitioners allege they only became aware of the sale and the subsequent legal battle after the Jimenez spouses moved for the issuance of a writ of execution in the ejectment case. Petitioners opposed the motion on the ground of the supervening event of the Jimenezes’ loss of ownership. The Metropolitan Trial Court granted the motion and issued the writ. Petitioners filed a case for “Damages with Preliminary Injunction” before the Regional Trial Court, which denied their application for a writ of preliminary injunction. They then filed a petition for prohibition and certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which denied their motion for issuance of a preliminary injunction. Consequently, a Sheriff’s Notice to Demolish and Vacate was issued. Hence, the instant petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals, in denying petitioners’ application for a writ of preliminary injunction, committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

RULING

No. The petition is dismissed. For the writ of certiorari to be granted, it must be shown that the respondent appellate court committed grave abuse of discretion equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, not mere errors of judgment. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals in denying the application for preliminary injunction. To be entitled to the injunctive writ, petitioners must show a clear and unmistakable right to be protected which is directly threatened by an act sought to be enjoined, and that the invasion of the right is material and substantial with an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. In this case, while the enforcement of the writ of execution is prejudicial to petitioners, they possess no clear legal right that merits the protection of the courts through the writ of preliminary injunction. Their right to possess the property has been declared inferior or inexistent in relation to the plaintiffs in the ejectment case after a judgment that has become final and executory. The ground raised by petitioners—the presence of a supervening event that renders execution unjust or inequitable—remains unresolved in the main case still pending and does not confirm the existence of a clear right in their favor. At best, they can obtain the suspension of the enforcement of the writ of execution or other similar relief on equitable grounds, but this does not entitle them to the injunctive writ.