G.R. No. 179898 - MAUNLAD HOMES, INC., N.C. PULUMBARIT INC., N.C.P. LEASING CORPORATION, AND NEMENCIO C. PULUMBARIT, SR., VS. UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES AND JULIE C. GO. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, upon posting and approval of the required bond let a writ of preliminary injunction issue enjoining the defendants from committing further acts of preventing plaintiffs or their authorized representatives from collecting rental payments for the occupancy of Maunlad Shopping Malls 1 and 2 from the tenants thereof; from preventing the tenants from making rental payments directly to the plaintiff or authorized representatives; and also to restrain defendants from collecting the rental payments from the tenants, under pain of contempt of court if the writ of preliminary injunction is not heeded. In short defendants are enjoined from exercising acts of ownership and/or possession over Maunlad Shopping Malls 1 and 2 by virtue of the writ of preliminary injunction. Meanwhile, let further hearings on the other pending incidents be set after receipt by this Court of the defendants' opposition to the plaintiff's motion to cite defendants in contempt of court, and of plaintiffs' reply thereto, as previously ordered. [7] The RTC ratiocinated: Weighing carefully the arguments of both parties, pro and con, on the basis of the testimonies of plaintiffs' witness, Nemencio C. Pulumbarit, Sr., and defendants' witness, Julie Go, this court, at this stage of the proceedings, must grant the prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. Injunction as an extraordinary remedy is calculated to preserve or maintain the status quo and is generally availed of to prevent an actual or threatened acts until the merits of the case can be heard ( Cagayan de Oro, etc. vs. Court of Appeals , 254 SCRA 220, 228). There are only two requisites to be satisfied if an injunction is to issue, namely: the existence of the right to be protected; and the facts against which injunction is to be directed are violative of said right. ( Del Rosario vs. Court of Appeals, 255 SCRA 152, 158). The clear showing of an actually existing right to be protected during the pendency of the principal action ( Carillo vs. Capulong, 222 SCRA 593, 600-601) with the threatened violation of it ( Sabalones vs. Court of Appeals, 230 SCRA 79, 86) has been duly established by plaintiffs. Clearly, at this stage, plaintiff Maunlad Malls 1 and 2 since the inception, it has the right to remain in continuous possession subject to the final outcome of the ejectment suit pending before the MTC of Makati. On the other hand, defendant Union Bank cannot validly claim, even admitting the circumstances offered by it in evidence to be true and correct, because in this jurisdiction no one has the right to obtain possession of a piece of property without resorting to judicial remedies available under the circumstances. To sanction defendant Union Bank's claimed ownership and possession of the premises in question, at this time, vis-à-vis its exercise of the rights appurtenant thereto would be to permit it to contradict itself for, as already pointed out, it has already instituted an action for ejectment