102.

Prima Facie Case

Q. Sometime in 1982, the Camarines Sur Provincial Government donated about 5 hectares of land to the Ministry of
Health. The Training and Teaching Hospital and Road Lot No. 3 were included in this donation. The Training and
Teaching Hospital became the Bicol Medical Center which constructed a steel gate along to control the traffic in
road lot 3. The gate closure drew a lot of criticism from the community, and an Attorney wrote to Naga City Mayor
asking for the reopening or dismantling of the gate for being a public nuisance. The Court of Appeals opined that
the Intervenors were able to prove the public character of Road Lot No. 3, considering that "the general public had
been using [it] since time immemorial and granted the petition and emphasized that only a prima facie showing of
an applicant's right to the writ is required in an application for writ of injunctive relief. The Court of Appeals also
gave due weight to the 1970s Revised Assessor's Tax Mapping Control Roll and its Identification Map, which
support the Intervenors' assertion of the public nature of Road Lot No. 3.
Was there a prima facie case?
Ans: No. A careful reading of the records convinces this Court that respondents failed to establish prima facie proof
of their clear legal right to utilize Road Lot No, 3. Whatever right they sought to establish by proving the public
nature of Road Lot No. 3 was rebutted by the Department of Health's certificate of title and the City Engineer's
categorical statement that "the road from Panganiban Drive up to the entrance and exit gate of [BJ\1C] was not
included in the list" of city roads under Naga City's control. Instead of merely relying on a tax map and claims of
customary use, Naga City or respondents should have presented a clear legal right to support their claim over Road
Lot No. 3. Prima facie evidence is evidence that is not rebutted or contradicted, making it good and
sufficient on its face to establish a fact constituting a party's claim or defense. (BICOL MEDICAL CENTER vs.
NOE B. BOTOR, G.R. No. 214073, October 4, 2017)

103. Temporary Restraining Order

Q. Evy Construction purchased a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 134890 from Ang. They executed a Deed of
Absolute Sale. Evy Construction registered the Deed of Absolute Sale with the Register of Deeds, TCT No. 168590
was issued in its name; however, it contained the annotation of the prior Notice of Levy on Attachment for civil
case 13442, as well as a Notice of Attachment/Levy upon Realty and a Notice of Levy on Preliminary Attachment.
Subsequently, the RTC rendered a Decision in Civil Case No. 13442 in favor of Valiant Roll Forming Sales
Corporation. A Writ of Execution and a Notice of Levy were issued against the property covered by TCT No.
134890. Evy Construction filed with the RTC its Complaint for Quieting of Title/Removal of Cloud, Annulment of
Execution Sale and Certificate of Sale, and Damages, with application for temporary restraining order and/or
preliminary injunction. It prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary
injunction to enjoin the Register of Deeds from compelling it to surrender its copy of TCT No. 168590 and from
annotating any further transactions relating to Civil Case No. 13442.
Should the Temporary Restraining Order be granted?
Ans: No. The prior levy on attachment carries over to the new certificate of title, effectively placing the buyers in
the position of their vendor under litigation. Thus, no injunctive writ could be issued pending a final determination
of petitioner's actual and existing right over the property. The grant of an injunctive writ could operate as a
prejudgment of the main case. Even assuming that there is already a final determination of petitioner's right over
the property, petitioner still failed to prove the urgent and paramount necessity to enjoin the Register of Deeds
from making further annotations on TCT No. 168590. In every application for provisional injunctive relief, the
applicant must establish the actual and existing right sought to be protected. The applicant must also
establish the urgency of a writ's issuance to prevent grave and irreparable injury. Failure to do so will
warrant the court's denial of the application. Moreover, the application for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction may be denied in the same summary hearing as the application for the issuance of
the temporary restraining order if the applicant fails to establish requisites for the entitlement of the writ.
(EVY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs VALIANT ROLL FORMING SALES CORPORATION,
G.R. No. 207938, October 11, 2017)
104. Lack of Probable cause; Judge independent evaluation
Q. On March 30, 2007, Personal Collection filed a Complaint-Affidavit for estafa with unfaithfulness and/or abuse
of confidence against Carandang before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City. Carandang filed her
Counter-Affidavit15 before the Office of the City Prosecutor, claiming that her failure to completely liquidate the
cash advances was due to the sudden termination of her employment by Personal Collection. She also claimed that
she did not receive any demand letter or any offer from Personal Collection to settle the case. The Office of the City
Prosecutor, through State Prosecutor, issued a Resolution recommending that the complaint against Carandang be
dismissed. After reinvestigation, it found that Personal Collection's cause of action is anchored primarily on
Carandang's failure to liquidate her remaining cash advances. However, the Office of the City Prosecutor was
unconvinced that Carandang's failure to return the cash advances would be sufficient to hold her liable for estafa.
There would be no estafa to speak of so long as there is no demand to return the money under obligation to be
returned. The element of demand not being present, the earlier finding that there was probable cause to charge
Carandang with estafa was overturned. Carandang's acts could only be a subject of a civil action for sum of money.
Regional Trial Court issued an Order granting the Motion to Withdraw Information. It found that Carandang used
the cash advances to pay for the operational expenses of Personal Collection Iloilo City branch and that her
unceremonious termination from employment prevented her from fully liquidating these cash advances, Thus,
Carandang was able to explain her failure to account for the cash advances she had received in trust.
Should the case be dismissed for lack of probable cause?
Ans: Yes. A reading of the Order shows that the trial court made its own assessment of the prosecution's evidence
as embodied in its January 29, 2010 Resolution. It sufficiently explained how the elements of estafa were not met
based on the additional evidence presented by the accused at the reinvestigation before the Office of the City
Prosecutor. Judges must act with cautious discernment and faithfully exercise their judicial discretion
when dismissing cases for lack of probable cause. An order granting the withdrawal of an information
based on the prosecutor's findings of lack of probable cause must show that the judge did not rely solely on
the prosecution's conclusions but had independently evaluated the evidence on record and the merits of
the case. (PERSONAL COLLECTION DIRECT SELLING, INC. vs. TERESITA L. CARANDANG, G.R. No. 206958,
November 8, 2017)