G.R. NO. 166173 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES AND JANNETTE G. LAGAREJOS, VS. DIGNO ALBAO, JR., GINA ALBAO RODRIGUEZ, LUCY ANN ALBAO ACUNA, NORMAN P. ALBAO, MARLON P. ALBAO, AND NONA ALBAO OCAMPO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the preliminary injunction issued by this Court is hereby ordered LIFTED, and this case ordered DISMISSED. [6] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) On March 12, 2001, respondents filed a Notice of Appeal of the RTC Order of January 12, 2001 to the Court of Appeals. In a separate move, they filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the said RTC Order of January 12, 2001, positing as follows: ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS COMMITTED BY THE COURT PRESIDENTIAL DECREE 385 WAS MISAPPLIED BY THE HONORABLE COURT AND MISREAD BY THE RESPONDENTS. THE INJUNCTION SUIT, BEING AN INDEPENDENT SUIT BY ITSELF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED UNTIL TRIAL ON THE MERITS WERE CONDUCTED AND THE PETITIONERS ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE INJUNCTION SUIT. THE HONORABLE COURT DID NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THE PETITIONERS' RIGHTS OVER THEIR PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN FLAGRANTLY INVADED BY THE RESPONDENTS AND AS ASSERTED IN THEIR PETITION THEY HAVE VERY SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS TO PROTECT. THE ORDER OF THE HONORABLE COURT IF NOT REVERSED SHALL CAUSE DAMAGE AND PREJUDICE TO THE PERSONS OF THE PETITIONERS AND IRREPERABLE DAMAGE AND INJURY TO THEIR PROPERTIES. [7] (EMPHASIS AND UNDERSCORING SUPPLIED) The trial court, by Order of February 14, 2001, deferred resolution of respondents' Motion for Reconsideration "for compelling reasons and in the interest of justice," in that: x x x x Legally, the Court finds no reason to grant the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners. The applicable law is very explicit and does not give the court any discretion in the issuance of either an injunction or preliminary injunction for the prevailing situation. Nevertheless, petitioners made allegations, which in effect, is to ask the court to give said party their day in court[.] In fact, petitioners' counsel made assertions alluding misconduct, which according to petitioners' counsel ca[n] be testified to by the petitioners and their witnesses. In the interest of justice the court will, therefore, set this case for the purpose of hearing said testimonies. It must be emphasized that the petitioners and their witnesses will be under oath and should not in the least way commit an offense by giving any false testimony or perjurous statement as this will result in the court imposing sanctions. x x x x [8] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) The trial court thus set the case for hearing on February 28, 2001 at 2:00 p.m. To the February 14, 2001 Order of the trial court, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration. When the case was called for hearing on February 28, 2001, what transpired is recorded by the trial court as follows in its Order of even date: When the case was called, Atty. Domingo V. Pascua appeared as counsel for the petitioners. Filed today is a "Motion for Reconsideration" by respondent Development Bank of the Philippines. There is no counsel appearing for said respondent in today's setting. The Court asked counsel for the petitioners [herein respondents] if he is rea