For : Tyrion

From : Atty. Monica

Date : July 23, 2014

RE : The grant of Writ of Injunction of the RTC, filed by Sansa

This is with regards to the judgment of MTC, granting our ejectment case against
Ms. Cersei. The said judgment have attained finality however, the RTC have issued an
injunctive writ enjoining the MTC’s Decision in favor of Ms. Sansa the actual occupant of
the subject property. Whether the issuance of the writ of injunction by the RTC was
proper?

The writ of injunction issued by the RTC is not proper. An injunction is a judicial
writ, process or proceeding whereby a party is ordered to do or refrain from doing a
certain act.1 The purpose of the action for injunction is to enjoin the defendant from the
commission or continuance of a specific act, or to compel a particular act in violation of
the rights of the applicant.2

In the present case, Mr Tyrion, it can be said that Ms Sansa’s right will be directly
be affected by the judgment of ejectment by MTC since it was she who is actually
occupying the subject property and not Ms Cersei. However, the RTC’s decision on
granting the writ of injunction filed by Ms Sansa is not proper since the judgment of the
MTC have already reached finality. The Supreme Court once held that “once a judgment
attains finality, it becomes immutable and unalterable. A final and executory judgment
may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct
what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law and regardless of
whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the
highest court of the land.3” What Ms Sansa indeed committed was an appeal to the RTC
under rule 45 of the rules of court however; such can no longer be availed off since the
judgment of MTC is already final and executory.

Our remedy is to file a petition to the said RTC, to set aside its order for the writ of
injunction. Rules of court provides “ When a judgment or final order is entered, or any
other proceeding is thereafter taken against a party in any court through fraud, accident,
mistake, or excusable negligence, he may file a petition in such court and in the same
case praying that the judgment, order or proceeding be set aside. 4” Hence, the RTC
have committed a grave mistake on issuing a writ of injunction to a judgment that
already attained finality. And if our petition be denied, our next recourse is to file a
1
Bacolod City Water District v. Labayen, 446 SCRA 110
2
Almeida v. Court of Appeals, 448 SCRA 681
3
Dacanay vs Yrastorza,Sr., 598 SCRA 20
4
Rule 38 Sec 1, Rules of Court
petition for certiorari under the rule 65 of rules of court with the Court of Appeals. The
rules of court provides that “When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess its or his jurisdiction, or with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no
appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a
person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the
facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the
proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law
and justice may require.5” This is on the ground that the RTC have gravely abuse its
discretion on issuing a writ of injunction against the judgment of the MTC which have
reached finality.

In line of our abovementioned discussion, our petition to set aside the writ of
injunction to the RTC will be granted on the following reason: 1) the judgment of the
MTC has already attained finality, and 2) the RTC have no jurisdiction to issue a writ of
injunction.

I hope the forgoing discussions have clarified the issues you have raised to us. In
case you still have some other questions, you are welcome to visit our office.

_______________________
Atty. Monica

5
Rule 65 Sec 1, Rules of Court