G.R. No. 203492 April 24, 2017
PABLO AND PABLINA MARCELO-MENDOZA, Petitioners vs. PEROXIDE PHILS., INC., herein represented by ROBERT R. NAVERA, Respondent

FACTS

This case originated from an ejectment suit filed by petitioners Pablo and Pablina Marcelo-Mendoza against respondent Peroxide Phils., Inc. (PPI). Following a public auction from the execution of the ejectment judgment, petitioner Pablo purchased levied properties of PPI located on the leased land. Third-party claimants, later joined by PPI, filed a separate civil case before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City to annul the sale. The RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction (WPI) to preserve the status quo, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. Despite the WPI, petitioner Pablo repeatedly took possession of the property, forcibly opening padlocks placed by the sheriff pursuant to court orders, and even operated a resort on the premises.
To enforce the injunction, the RTC, through Judge Paneda, issued orders in 2006 and 2009 directing the sheriff to re-padlock the property and serve a notice to vacate on Pablo, who was eventually forced out. However, in 2011, Judge Paneda issued an Omnibus Order granting Pablo’s motion to remove the padlock, allowing him to re-enter and possess the property, effectively recalling the 2009 enforcement order. PPI filed a motion for reconsideration, but after five months of inaction, it filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA).

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly found that the RTC, through Judge Paneda, committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Omnibus Order that allowed petitioner Pablo to re-enter the property subject of the injunction.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of Judge Paneda. The legal logic is anchored on the nature and purpose of a preliminary injunction. A writ of preliminary injunction is a preservative remedy issued to maintain the status quo ante litem, or the last actual, peaceable, and uncontested state of things preceding the controversy. Its sole objective is to preserve the subject of the litigation pending final adjudication.
In this case, the status quo to be preserved was the situation before Pablo’s forcible re-entry and occupation, which were clear violations of the court’s injunction orders. The RTC’s subsequent Omnibus Order, which recalled the enforcement order and restored Pablo’s possession, radically altered—rather than preserved—the status quo. It effectively rewarded Pablo for his contumacious defiance of the court’s lawful directives. Such an order was issued with grave abuse of discretion, as it was contrary to law and jurisprudence, executed whimsically, and amounted to a refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. The CA properly exercised its corrective power via certiorari to annul the RTC’s capricious order and uphold the integrity of the judicial process.