Republic of The Philippines Manila: Eleventh Division

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 11

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

MANILA

ELEVENTH DIVISION

MANILA PILOTS ASSOCIATES CA-G.R. SP No. 67282


COMPANY,
Petitioner, Members:

GUEVARA-SALONGA, J.,
-versus- Chairperson,
ROXAS, V. Q., and
GARCIA, R. R., JJ.:
HON. ARTEMIO S. TIPON,
Presiding Judge of the Regional Promulgated:
Trial Court, Branch 46, Manila,
and BENEDICTO D. LIM,
Respondents. _________________

x---------------------------------x

DECISION

GARCIA, R. R, J.:

THE CASE

Before Us is a Petition for Certiorari1 under Rule 65 of the


Rules of Court assailing the Order2 dated October 4, 2001 of
public respondent Regional Trial Court, Branch 46, Manila which
denied herein petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of the Order3
dated August 7, 2000 of the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC), as well as, the Urgent Motion to Lift or Dissolve the Writ of

1
Vide: Amended Petition for Certiorari; Rollo, pp. 119-131
2
Rollo, pp. 16-17
3
Rollo, pp. 143-147
CA G.R. SP No. 67282 2
Decision

Preliminary Mandatory Injunction issued by the SEC.

THE FACTS

The case stemmed from a complaint for sum of money and


damages filed before the SEC by private respondent Benedicto D.
Lim (or Lim) against petitioner Manila Pilots Associates Company
(or petitioner), a partnership of harbor pilots in the Manila
Pilotage District. The complaint alleged, among other things, that
Lim was indefinitely suspended and off-lined from his pilotage
duties and was summarily removed as a member of the
association.

In the course of the proceedings, Lim filed a Motion for


Mandatory Injunction4 praying for the issuance of an order
requiring petitioner, through its Chief Pilot Capt. Arturo D.
Frondozo, to immediately reinstate Lim to his duties, rights,
interests and prerogatives as a member of the association. The
motion was granted by the SEC in its Order5 dated February 8,
2000, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, let a Writ of Preliminary Injunction be


issued upon the filing of the petitioner of a bond in the
amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), enjoining
herein respondents and other responsible officers of Manila
Pilots Association to reinstate petitioner as a member of
the respondent association with all its corresponding rights
and obligations until such time that the instant case be
decided with finality.
4
Rollo, pp. 210-214
5
Rollo, pp. 48-52
CA G.R. SP No. 67282 3
Decision

SO ORDERED.6

The Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction was


subsequently issued by the SEC on February 17, 2000.
Thereafter, an Urgent Motion for Contempt7 dated February 24,
2000 was filed by Lim claiming that Chief Pilot Capt. Andres
Momongan (or Capt. Momongan) of petitioner association and
Benjamin Cecilio of the Philippine Ports Authority resisted and
disobeyed the writ of injunction and should be held liable for
contempt. On March 30, 2000, the SEC issued an Order8 directing
Captain Alberto Compas (or Capt. Compas), Capt. Momongan or
persons acting for and in their behalf, or in behalf of petitioner to
comply with the SEC Order of February 8, 2000 and immediately
implement the writ of injunction.

On April 5, 2000, petitioner filed an Urgent Motion to Lift or


Dissolve Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction9 on the ground
that the implementation thereof or the reinstatement of Lim
would cause damage, disharmony and demoralization among the
member pilots. Lim, on the other hand, filed an Urgent Ex-Parte
Manifestation and Motion10 dated April 6, 2000, reiterating his
prayer for the issuance of a bench warrant for the arrest of Capt.
Momongan for failure to implement the writ of injunction. An
Urgent Motion for Contempt11 dated April 10, 2000 was also filed

6
Rollo, p. 52
7
Rollo, pp. 219-221
8
Rollo, p. 223
9
Rollo, pp. 224-226
10
Rollo, pp. 231-232
11
Rollo, pp. 233-235
CA G.R. SP No. 67282 4
Decision

by Lim praying that Atty. Luis Bantog be held in contempt for


advising Capt. Momongan to defy the writ of injunction.

On August 7, 2000, the SEC issued an Order12 finding Capt.


Momongan and Atty. Luis Bantog guilty of indirect contempt for
ignoring the writ and for adopting measures and pre-conditions to
forestall the immediate reinstatement of Lim, the fallo of which
reads:

PREMISES CONSIDERED, Capt. Andres Momongan


and Atty. Luis T. Bantog are hereby declared guilty of
indirect contempt of this Commission for their intentional
non-compliance with the lawful orders of this Office.

Accordingly, Capt. Andres Momongan, Jr. and Atty.


Luis T. Bantog are hereby penalized with an imposition of a
fine of TEN THOUSAND (P10,000.00) PESOS each.

SO ORDERED.13

Accordingly, a Motion for Reconsideration dated September


4, 2000 was filed by petitioner reiterating its stand that the Chief
Pilot of the association at the time Lim served the writ of
injunction was Capt. Compas and not Capt. Momongan who was
then prevented from occupying the position of Chief Pilot by virtue
of the writ of injunction and prohibition issued by this Court in a
separate case. Capt. Momongan was thus not in the position to
implement the writ issued by the SEC. As regards Atty. Luis
Bantog, there was nothing in the records that will show that he
recommended to Capt. Momongan or to petitioner association to
defy the writ of injunction.

12
Supra at Note 3
13
Rollo, pp. 146-147
CA G.R. SP No. 67282 5
Decision

Meantime, R.A. 8799, otherwise known as the Securities


Regulation Code took effect. The Act transferred jurisdiction over
intra-corporate disputes from SEC to courts of general jurisdiction
or the appropriate Regional Trial Courts. The instant case was
then raffled before public respondent RTC, Branch 46, Manila.

Thereafter, a Motion for Execution14 dated August 29, 2001


was filed by Lim before the court a quo praying for the immediate
implementation of the writ of injunction issued by the SEC.
Petitioner opposed this claiming that before a writ of execution
could be issued, the court must first resolve petitioner's Motion for
Reconsideration of the SEC Order dated August 7, 2000 and its
Urgent Motion to Lift or Dissolve Writ of Preliminary Mandatory
Injunction dated April 5, 2000.

On October 4, 2001, the court a quo issued the assailed


Order denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of the
August 7, 2000 Order of the SEC for being a prohibited pleading.
The Urgent Motion to Lift or Dissolve Writ of Preliminary
Mandatory Injunction was likewise denied by the court a quo,
ruling that there was no evidence to prove petitioner's claim that
the implementation of the writ would cause disharmony and
demoralization among the member pilots of the association. As
prayed for by Lim, the court a quo granted the Motion for
Execution, directing petitioner or any person acting in its behalf to
cause the immediate reinstatement of Lim. The pertinent portions
of the Order read:

14
Rollo, pp. 282-283
CA G.R. SP No. 67282 6
Decision

[A]fter due consideration of the arguments raised by


all parties, the Court hereby resolves the foregoing as
follows:

Motion for Reconsideration. The motion is DENIED,


it being a prohibited pleading under Section 8, paragraph
3, Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure Governing Intra-
Corporate Controversies under Republic Act No. 8799.

Urgent Motion. The motion is likewise DENIED.


There is no evidence, oral or documentary, that the
implementation of the same will cause demoralization or
disharmony in the ranks of the harbor pilots. On the other
hand, the bond will compensate for damages if, in the final
analysis, petitioner was not entitled to the writ.

The petitioner is directed, however, to file an


additional cash bond of TEN THOUSAND PESOS
(P10,000.00) for the same purpose within ten (10) days
from receipt hereof.

WHEREFORE, the motion for execution filed by


plaintiff is hereby granted and respondents, their agents,
deputies or persons acting on their behalf are directed to
reinstate petitioner as member of the Manila Pilots
Association. x x x

IT IS SO ORDERED.15

Unrelenting, petitioner sought relief through this Petition for


Certiorari, raising the following assignment of errors, to wit:

THE COURT A QUO ACTED ARBITRARILY AND WITH GRAVE


ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED PETITIONER'S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BASED ON A RULE OF
PROCEDURE NOT EXISTING AT THE TIME THE SUBJECT
MOTION WAS FILED.

15
Rollo, pp. 16-17
CA G.R. SP No. 67282 7
Decision

II

THE COURT A QUO ACTED ARBITRARILY AND WITH GRAVE


ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED PETITIONER'S
URGENT MOTION TO LIFT OR DISSOLVE WRIT OF
PRELIMINARY MANDATORY INJUNCTION FOR LACK OF
EVIDENCE, ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY, TO SHOW THAT THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SAME WILL CAUSE
DEMORALIZATION OR DISHARMONY IN THE RANKS OF
THE HARBOR PILOTS.

THE ISSUE

At the core of the present petition is the question of


whether or not the court a quo committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it
denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration and upheld the
issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction by the
SEC.

THE COURT'S RULING

The petition must fail.

Petitioner, at the outset, seeks the nullification of the order


of the court a quo denying its Motion for Reconsideration on the
ground that it is a prohibited pleading pursuant to the Rules of
Procedure Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies under R.A.
8799. Petitioner asserts that the motion was filed prior to the
effectivity of the said rules which cannot be given retroactive
CA G.R. SP No. 67282 8
Decision

effect because such action will impair its rights under the old rules
and is contrary to the principles of equity and justice.

This fails to persuade.

The retroactive application of procedural rules to pending


cases is undoubtedly well settled16 and petitioner even admitted
this established legal principle in its petition. The fact that
procedural statutes may somehow affect the litigants' rights may
not preclude their retroactive application to pending actions. The
retroactive application of procedural laws is not violative of any
right of a person who may feel that he is adversely affected.17
The reason is that as a general rule, no vested right may attach
to, nor arise from, procedural laws.18 For this reason alone, the
present petition should be dismissed. Even positing that
petitioner is entitled to the aforecited right, the rule is well-settled
that not every error in proceeding or every erroneous conclusion
of law or fact is an abuse of discretion.19

Neither has petitioner demonstrated that the court a quo


acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction in denying the Urgent Motion to Lift or Dissolve the
Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction. A writ of mandatory
injunction is granted upon showing that (a) the invasion of the
right is material and substantial; (b) the right of complainant is
16
Asset Privatization Trust v. CA, 229 SCRA 627 (1994); Del Rosario v. CA, 241 SCRA 519
(1995); Diu v. CA, 251 SCRA 472 (1995)
17
Gregorio v. CA, 26 SCRA 229 (1968)
18
Billones v. CIR, 14 SCRA 674 (1965)
19
Deutsche Bank Manila v. Sps. Chua Yok See and Rebecca See, G.R. No. 165606, Feb. 6, 2006
CA G.R. SP No. 67282 9
Decision

clear and unmistakable; and (c) there is an urgent and permanent


necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.20

Based on the evidence presented by Lim, the SEC found


that all the requisites for the issuance of an injunctive writ were
present. In ordering the reinstatement of Lim as a member of
petitioner association, the SEC took into consideration the fact
that no less than the Philippine Ports Authority (or PPA) has
expressed through a letter that the reinstatement of Lim should
be immediately implemented. The SEC further took note of the
fact that Lim's appointment as a regular pilot in the Manila
Pilotage District has remained valid since it has not been canceled
or revoked by the PPA. Despite such favorable endorsement from
the PPA, petitioner still refused to reinstate Lim to his membership
in the association and to his pilotage duties. Petitioner also failed
to adhere to the provisions of PPA Administrative Order No. 03-85
regarding the imposition of disciplinary action and dismissal on its
member pilots. Clearly then, Lim possessed the right to be
immediately reinstated as a member of the association to allow
him to continue performing his pilotage duties and to prevent
further deprivation of his means of livelihood.

Significantly, preliminary injunction is an extraordinary


remedy calculated to preserve the status quo of things and to
prevent actual or threatened acts violative of the rules of equity
and good conscience as would consequently afford an injured
party a cause of action resulting from the failure of the law to
provide for an adequate or complete relief. The sole purpose of

20
Semirara Coal Corp. v. HGL Development Corp., G.R. No. 166854, December 6, 2006
CA G.R. SP No. 67282 10
Decision

which is not to correct a wrong of the past, in the sense of redress


for injury already sustained, but to prevent further injury. The
purpose of a preliminary injunction, then, is to prevent threatened
or continuous irremediable injury to some of the parties before
their claims can be thoroughly studied and adjudicated.21 Thus,
after evaluating the evidence presented by both parties, the court
a quo sustained the SEC's finding that justice would be better
served if Lim is immediately reinstated as a member of the
association to preserve the status quo until the final
determination of the merits of the case. We find nothing
whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious in such ruling.

In fine, it must be stressed that Certiorari under Rule 65 of


the Rules of Court is a remedy narrow in scope and inflexible in
character. It is not a general utility tool in the legal workshop. It
offers only a limited form of review. Its principal function is to
keep an inferior tribunal within its jurisdiction. It can be invoked
only for an error of jurisdiction, that is, one where the act
complained of was issued by the court, officer or a quasi-judicial
body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion which is tantamount to lack or in excess of
jurisdiction.22 We find neither lack of jurisdiction nor grave abuse
of discretion in this case.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.

21
First Global Realty & Dev't. Corp. v. San Agustin, G.R. No. 144499, February 19, 2002
22
Sps. Estares v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 144755, June 8, 2005
CA G.R. SP No. 67282 11
Decision

SO ORDERED.

RAMON R. GARCIA
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

JOSEFINA GUEVARA-SALONGA VICENTE Q. ROXAS


Associate Justice Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is


hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer
of the opinion of the Court. (Sec. 5, Rule 8, RIRCA [a]).

JOSEFINA GUEVARA-SALONGA
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Eleventh Division

You might also like