G.R. No. L-23449 January 30, 1965
RAFAEL L. DIZON, petitioner, vs. HON. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

On August 17, 1964, Iluminado R. Medrano filed a quo warranto case in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against Rafael L. Dizon, Sr., et al. Medrano sought to have Dizon’s appointment as auditor of the Central Bank declared null and void and to have himself declared entitled to that office as the official next higher in rank. He also prayed for a writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction ex parte to enjoin Dizon from acting as auditor pending the case’s resolution, to maintain the status quo of Medrano’s position as acting auditor before Dizon’s alleged usurpation. Respondent Judge Nicasio Yatco granted the ex parte preliminary injunction on August 31, 1964. Dizon then filed this petition for certiorari to set aside that order, alleging grave abuse of discretion.
The factual background, as presented in the pleadings, is as follows: Ismael Mathay retired as auditor of the Central Bank on May 12, 1964. Prior to his retirement, Medrano, then a senior assistant auditor, had requested appointment to the vacant position, supported by endorsements. Upon Mathay’s retirement, Hilarion Beronilla was designated acting auditor. On August 11, 1964, Beronilla went on sick leave, and Medrano was designated acting auditor in his stead. On August 21, 1964, the Auditor General ordered Beronilla to resume as acting auditor, which he did on August 22. Meanwhile, on July 10, 1964, Rafael L. Dizon received an appointment as auditor of the Central Bank, approved by the Commissioner of Civil Service, to take effect upon assumption of duty. On August 24, 1964, the Auditor General ordered Dizon to assume office, revoked Medrano’s designation as acting auditor, and directed Beronilla to return to the Philippine National Bank. Dizon took his oath and assumed the duties of auditor on that date.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the ex parte writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction against petitioner Dizon.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari and set aside the order granting the preliminary injunction.
The Court held that when Medrano filed the quo warranto petition, he was merely a senior assistant auditor, while Dizon was the duly appointed auditor, approved by the Civil Service Commissioner, and was actually holding and discharging the duties of the office. Until proven otherwise in the quo warranto proceedings, Dizon was entitled to continue in office pending trial. The preliminary injunction was issued without Medrano having an existing clear and positive right to protect. Injunction requires a showing of a right needing judicial protection and an injurious invasion of that right. Medrano’s claim to the office, based on being next in rank, was disputed by Dizon and involved evidentiary matters properly to be resolved in a trial on the merits, not in a preliminary proceeding based merely on pleadings. The writ was therefore issued without legal basis. The Court dissolved its own preliminary injunction and directed the trial court to try and decide the quo warranto case on its merits.