G.R. No. 154623 , March 13, 2009
Jimmy T. Go, Petitioner, vs. The Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff of Negros Occidental, Ildefonso M. Villanueva, Jr., and Sheriff Dioscoro F. Caponpon, Jr. and Multi-Luck Corporation, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Multi-Luck Corporation filed a collection suit against Alberto T. Looyuko (sole proprietor of Noah’s Ark Merchandising Inc.) in the RTC of Bacolod City (Civil Case No. 98-10404) concerning dishonored checks. The Bacolod RTC rendered a decision in favor of Multi-Luck, which became final and executory. A writ of execution was issued over properties registered in Looyuko’s name. Petitioner Jimmy T. Go, claiming to be a business partner and co-owner of Looyuko’s properties, filed a complaint for injunction with a prayer for a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction in the RTC of Pasig City (Civil Case No. 68125) to stop the auction sale. He alleged he was not impleaded in the Bacolod case and would be deprived of his share without due process. The Pasig RTC issued a TRO, then a writ of preliminary injunction, and denied Multi-Luck’s motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals reversed the Pasig RTC, ruling it gravely abused its discretion by interfering with the judgment and execution proceedings of a co-equal court (the Bacolod RTC) and that petitioner failed to establish a clear legal right.

ISSUE

Whether the Pasig RTC acted correctly in issuing a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the execution of a final judgment rendered by the Bacolod RTC, based on petitioner’s claim of being a co-owner and third-party claimant to the properties subject of execution.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that the doctrine of non-interference by co-equal courts applies. The Bacolod RTC, having acquired jurisdiction over the collection suit and rendered a final judgment, retained exclusive jurisdiction over all incidents related to the execution of that judgment. The Pasig RTC’s issuance of an injunction constituted improper interference with the Bacolod RTC’s proceedings. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to establish a clear and unmistakable right (right in esse) necessary for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. His claim of co-ownership based on agreements was insufficient to prove an actual right deserving of judicial protection through an injunction, as the proper remedy for a third-party claimant is to vindicate his claim in a separate action or, under Rule 39, Section 16 of the Rules of Court, to file his claim in the court issuing the execution. The exception in Santos v. Bayhon (where a court could enjoin a Labor Arbiter’s execution) was inapplicable because the Bacolod RTC had jurisdiction to resolve questions of ownership related to the execution.