GR 95738; (December, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 95738 , December 10, 1991
ADRIANA DIONISIO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. JUDGE RODOLFO ORTIZ OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 89 AND PABLO TAN GONZAGA, et al., respondents.
FACTS
The petitioners and private respondents are co-owners of adjacent lots in Quezon City. The private respondents, as members of the Quezon City Industrial Estates Association (QCIEA), had used Howmart Road—a private road traversing the petitioners’ lots—pursuant to a right-of-way agreement. This agreement expired in December 1988. While renegotiations for a new contract were pending, the private respondents opened a new gate on their lot directly fronting Howmart Road. The petitioners, objecting to this new gate, erected a steel barricade in front of it. The private respondents filed a civil action for damages and sought a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to compel the removal of the barricade. The Regional Trial Court granted the writ.
The petitioners complied with the order by removing the barricade after failing to secure a temporary restraining order from the Court of Appeals. They then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, challenging the RTC’s order. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition as moot and academic due to the petitioners’ compliance, and denied their motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari as moot and academic after the petitioners complied with the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the case as moot. Compliance with a coercive order under a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction does not render a challenge to its validity moot and academic. The core issue—the propriety of the injunction’s issuance—remains justiciable. The Court emphasized that a preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy, and its grant or compliance does not preempt a superior court’s power to review and potentially nullify it if erroneously issued.
On the merits, the Supreme Court found the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the injunction. For a writ of preliminary injunction to issue, the applicant must demonstrate a clear and unmistakable right. The private respondents’ claim of an easement of right of way over Howmart Road lacked legal basis, as the original agreement had expired. Their continued use was merely by the petitioners’ tolerance pending renegotiation, which did not establish a vested right. Since the private respondents failed to show an unquestionable right, they were not entitled to injunctive relief. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the lower courts and lifted the writ of preliminary injunction.