G.R. No. 139767 ; August 5, 2003
FELIPE SY DUNGOG, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, JUAN A. GATO, in his official capacity as RTC Sheriff, Lapu-Lapu City and CARLOS GOTHONG LINES, INC., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Felipe Sy Dungog’s parents, the Spouses Dungog, entered into a Contract to Sell with respondent Carlos Gothong Lines, Inc. covering several lots, including Felipe’s Lot 1031-F. Gothong Lines paid installments via postdated checks but issued a stop payment order on the last four checks. The Spouses Dungog, claiming Gothong Lines breached the contract by the stop order and other violations, informed Gothong Lines they would no longer sell the remaining lots. Gothong Lines then filed a complaint for Specific Performance with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the Spouses Dungog from canceling the contract and from blocking access to the properties, including Lot 1031-F.
The trial court granted the writ. Felipe, claiming to be the registered owner of Lot 1031-F, filed a special civil action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals to challenge the injunction, arguing it affected his property without him being a party to the suit. The Court of Appeals dismissed his petition outright. Felipe elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Felipe Sy Dungog’s petition for certiorari which assailed the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the trial court in a case where he was not a party.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the appellate court’s dismissal. The Court held that Felipe Sy Dungog, not being a party to the main case for specific performance between Gothong Lines and his parents, had no legal standing to directly assail the interlocutory order (the writ of preliminary injunction) issued therein through a petition for certiorari. The proper remedy for a non-party like Felipe, who claims a legal interest affected by an injunction, is to file a motion for intervention in the main case before the trial court under Rule 19 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The writ of injunction was issued to preserve the status quo between the contracting parties pending litigation, and Felipe’s rights as an alleged owner are not adjudicated by the injunction but remain to be fully litigated in the main case or in a separate proceeding. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the trial court in issuing the writ based on the pleadings, as it appeared necessary to prevent Gothong Lines from being unjustly deprived of the use of the properties it had allegedly paid for. Felipe’s recourse was to intervene, not to file a separate certiorari action challenging an order from a proceeding he was not part of.