GR 170049; (March, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 170049; March 14, 2008
GENEROSO A. JUABAN and FRANCIS M. ZOSA, Petitioners, vs. RENE ESPINA and CEBU DISCOVERY BAY PROPERTIES, INC., Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Juaban and Zosa were the lawyers for the Heirs of Bancale in a recovery case (Civil Case No. 2309-L) involving certain properties. The Heirs entered into an Agreement to Sell with respondent Espina, who designated respondent Cebu Discovery Bay Properties, Inc. (CDPI) as vendee. Espina advanced ₱2,000,000.00. Subsequently, petitioners secured a court order fixing their attorney’s fees at ₱9,000,000.00. Despite a pending appeal by the Heirs from this order, the trial court issued a writ of execution. The sheriff levied upon and sold the subject properties at public auction to petitioners to satisfy the attorney’s fees. Respondents filed a third-party claim, which was disregarded.
Respondents then filed a separate complaint (Civil Case No. 4871-L) for injunction with damages against petitioners and the sheriff, seeking to enjoin the execution sale and the transfer of ownership. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, made permanent a preliminary injunction enjoining petitioners from exercising ownership rights, and ordered the RTC to proceed on the issue of damages.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in making permanent the writ of preliminary injunction and in ruling that respondents’ complaint for injunction stated a cause of action.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA Decision. The Court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action for injunction. A cause of action exists if the complaint states the plaintiff’s primary right and the defendant’s corresponding duty, and the act or omission violating that right. Respondents, as buyers with a contractual right under the Agreement to Sell, alleged that petitioners, through a premature and questionable execution sale, were unlawfully asserting ownership over the properties. This constituted a clear violation of respondents’ rights, warranting judicial protection via injunction.
The Court rejected petitioners’ argument that the prayer for relief, which sought to enjoin the sale, did not encompass enjoining the exercise of ownership rights. The Court explained that the relief granted is based on the material allegations of the complaint, not the precise wording of the prayer. Logically, seeking to prevent the transfer of ownership includes seeking to prevent the subsequent exercise of rights stemming from that ownership. Since the complaint adequately alleged a threatened violation of a right, the CA correctly found a cause of action and made the injunction permanent to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable injury pending the resolution of the underlying issues regarding the validity of the execution sale.