G.R. NO. 168990 - TERESITA S. BARRANCO, VS. COMMISSION ON THE SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, an Entry of Judgment was issued by the Supreme Court certifying that the resolution dismissing the case had become final and executory on July 11, 2001. Prior however to the filing of the Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court by Barranco, Beliran already moved for the issuance of a writ of execution to enforce the said COSLAP Resolution on December 14, 2000. On February 16, 2001, COSLAP issued a Writ of Execution in the two cases. The same was however returned unsatisfied, compelling Beliran to file a Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Demolition dated April 2, 2001. Acting on said motion of Beliran, COSLAP issued a Writ of Demolition on August 9, 2001. Teresita Barranco, Paciencia Siatong and heirs of Julia Rodriguez, represented by their attorney-in-fact Josefa Tabaras, filed a special civil action for Injunction and Prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a restraining order in the court a quo on September 4, 2001 against COSLAP, Beliran and the City Sheriff of Iloilo. The said civil action was docketed as Civil Case No. 01-26899 and was raffled to the respondent judge for the proper disposition thereof. [6] On October 29, 2001, the trial court issued an Order [7] enjoining the implementation of the writ of demolition based on its findings that COSLAP did not acquire jurisdiction over the dispute because the letters of Beliran did not constitute as valid complaints in accordance with COSLAP's Rule of Procedure. The trial court denied COSLAP's motion for reconsideration [8] hence it filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus with Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction which was granted by the appellate court, to wit: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered by us GRANTING the petition filed in this case, SETTING ASIDE the Orders issued by the respondent judge on October 29, 2001 and January 11, 2002 and ORDERING the respondent judge to dismiss Civil Case No. 01-26899. [9] According to the Court of Appeals, the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when it unjustifiably failed to dismiss the Petition for Injunction and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of Restraining Order filed before it on the grounds of res judicata and forum shopping. The appellate court pointed out that there is res judicata since this Court already dismissed a similar petition in G.R. No. 146729 on March 12, 2001 [10] which decision became final and executory on July 11, 2001. [11] The Court of Appeals also found petitioner guilty for forum shopping because after getting an unfavorable decision from this Court due to the dismissal of the petition for certiorari, she again filed before the trial court another petition based on the same facts and against the same parties which similarly sought to restrain the execution of the Orders of COSLAP. Finally, the appellate court declared that trial courts cannot restrain COSLAP from executin