G.R. No. 138219; September 17, 2001
EX-MAYOR GERARDO V. TAMBAOAN, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and THELMA P. QUINTO, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a dispute over the presidency of the Liga ng mga Barangay (ABC) of Mapandan, Pangasinan. On June 30, 1994, an election was held, but seven barangay captains, including Thelma Quinto, walked out. The eight remaining captains, including Loreto Aquino, proceeded with the election, resulting in Aquino’s proclamation. The DILG initially recognized Aquino. However, Alex David, President of the National Liga, later recalled Aquino’s certificate, citing the absence of required signatures from DILG, COMELEC, and DECS representatives on the canvass documents. Declaring a failure of election, David appointed Thelma Quinto as ABC President on September 20, 1994.
Aquino and others filed a civil action (Civil Case No. 94-00321-D) before the RTC of Dagupan City, seeking to nullify Quinto’s appointment. The RTC, in an October 25, 1994 order, denied Aquino’s application for a preliminary injunction and lifted an earlier temporary restraining order. The court ruled that Aquino failed to exhaust administrative remedies, that a similar case was pending with the DILG, and that Quinto’s appointment was valid. A subsequent order on January 6, 1995, denied reconsideration and directed that Quinto be allowed to assume office as an ex-officio member of the Sangguniang Bayan. When local officials prevented Quinto from assuming her seat, she filed a mandamus petition with the Court of Appeals, which granted it, ordering her installation.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the writ of mandamus to compel Thelma Quinto’s installation based on the RTC’s interlocutory orders denying a preliminary injunction.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court reversed its decision. The legal logic centers on the nature of the RTC’s orders and the remedy of mandamus. The October 25, 1994 and January 6, 1995 RTC orders were merely interlocutory; they only resolved the ancillary issue of preliminary injunction and did not constitute a final judgment on the main action for declaration of nullity of appointments. An interlocutory order does not terminate the proceedings but leaves something to be done by the court regarding the merits of the case. Therefore, it cannot be enforced by a writ of execution.
Since the main case remained pending and unresolved, Quinto’s right to the office was not definitively established. Mandamus is a remedy to compel the performance of a ministerial duty when the petitioner has a clear legal right to the act demanded. Here, Quinto’s right was still contingent upon the final outcome of the principal case, which had not yet been tried. The RTC’s interlocutory orders, which were based solely on preliminary evidence, could not vest in Quinto a clear and unquestionable right enforceable by mandamus. Consequently, the Court of Appeals improperly granted the writ. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the RTC for trial on the merits of the main action.