G.R. No. 168906, December 4, 2008.
PERLA S. ESGUERRA, petitioner, vs. JUDGE FATIMA GONZALES-ASDALA, J. WALTER THOMPSON COMPANY (PHILS.), INC., and AGL MARKET RESEARCH INCORPORATED, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Perla S. Esguerra, a licensed nutritionist-dietitian and Chief Dietitian of the Philippine Heart Center (PHC), filed an Amended Complaint for Damages with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against respondents J. Walter Thompson Company (JWT) and AGL Market Research, Inc. (AGL). The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-03-50205 and raffled to Branch 87 of the Quezon City RTC, presided by respondent Judge Fatima Gonzales-Asdala.
Esguerra alleged that on May 16, 2003, she participated in what was presented as a study by AGL at Cravings Restaurant in San Juan. During the event, she was interviewed and videotaped without being fully informed that it was for an Ovaltine commercial. She signed a document but annotated it with a condition that clearance from the PHC Director must first be obtained if she were chosen to appear in a commercial. On June 16, 2003, an Ovaltine commercial featuring portions of her videotaped interview was aired on television without prior notice, without the required clearance from the PHC Director, and without payment of the promised talent fee. Esguerra immediately protested and demanded the commercial’s pull-out.
In her complaint before the RTC, Esguerra prayed for a TRO and preliminary injunction to stop the airing of the commercial, and for payment of damages. She claimed that after filing her application for injunctive relief, she made several inquiries but her application was not set for hearing. On August 26, 2003, she filed an Urgent Motion for Inhibition against Judge Asdala, alleging bias due to the judge’s failure to act swiftly on her TRO application. On August 28, 2003, the RTC issued an Order denying her application for injunction/TRO, finding that she failed to show the specific acts violating her rights or the material and substantial right invaded to warrant injunctive relief, and that her action for damages would adequately compensate her.
Without waiting for the resolution of her subsequent Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of the August 28 Order and her Motion for Inhibition, Esguerra filed a Petition for Prohibition and Certiorari/Mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 79075). On September 3, 2003, Judge Asdala issued an Order explaining that no summary hearing on the TRO was conducted because there was no verified application for a TRO on record and because summons and the amended complaint had been served on only one defendant (JWT), not on AGL.
The Court of Appeals denied Esguerra’s petition. Esguerra filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was also denied. She then filed the present Petition for Review before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying Esguerra’s Petition for Prohibition and Certiorari/Mandamus, which sought to annul the RTC’s Order denying her application for injunction/TRO and to compel the judge to conduct a summary hearing, and to prohibit the judge from further hearing the case.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ Decision.
The Court held that the special civil actions of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus are not substitutes for a lost appeal. Esguerra’s recourse to these remedies was premature because she filed her petition with the Court of Appeals without first awaiting the resolution of her pending Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Inhibition before the RTC. The RTC had not yet been given a full opportunity to correct its alleged error. Furthermore, the Court found that the RTC’s Order denying the application for injunction was a interlocutory order, not a final judgment, and the proper remedy against it was not certiorari but to await the final judgment and then appeal. The Court also noted that Esguerra failed to show that the RTC judge acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The RTC’s denial was based on its finding that Esguerra failed to sufficiently show facts entitling her to injunctive relief as required by the Rules of Court. The Court emphasized that the issuance of a TRO or writ of preliminary injunction is discretionary upon the court and requires a clear showing of a right to be protected.