Spouses Laus v. Optimum Security Services
Spouses Laus v. Optimum Security Services
Spouses Laus v. Optimum Security Services
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE , J : p
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari 1 assailing the Decision 2
dated March 25, 2013 and the Resolution 3 dated July 22, 2013 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 177258, which lifted the writ of preliminary injunction (WPI)
issued by the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch 62 (RTC) in Civil Case No.
12307 in favor of petitioners Spouses Ceferino C. Laus and Monina P. Laus, and
Spouses Antonio O. Koh and Elisa T. Koh (petitioners), and dismissed their complaint
for damages against respondent Optimum Security Services, Inc. (respondent). HTcADC
The Facts
On October 3, 2005, petitioners led a complaint, 4 denominated as one for
"Damages with Application for a Temporary Restraining Order [(TRO)] and [WPI],"
docketed as Civil Case No. 12307, against respondent, several security guards
employed by it, including Ronnie Marivalles (Marivalles) and Rodrigo Olivette, and
TIPCO Estate Corporation (TIPCO; collectively, other defendants). Petitioners alleged
that on three (3) separate occasions in August 2005, they were prevented by armed
security guards working for respondent and TIPCO from entering the eight (8) parcels
of land in Mabalacat, Pampanga belonging to them, covered by Transfer Certi cates of
Title (TCT) Nos. 576602-R, 5 578037-R, 6 578038-R, 7 578039-R, 8 575138-R, 9 575112-
R, 10 576601-R, 11 and 576603-R 12 (subject properties). 13 Thus, petitioners prayed
that: (a) moral, exemplary, and liquidated damages be awarded to them; (b) a TRO and
WPI be issued directing the respondent and the other defendants to refrain from
interfering with the exercise of their rights as owners of the subject properties: and (c)
after trial, the injunction be made permanent. 14
Opposing petitioners' application for TRO and WPI, respondent and Marivalles
countered 15 that petitioners are not entitled to the TRO and WPI prayed for because
they do not own the subject properties. They maintained that Margarita dela Rosa,
Manuel dela Peña, Michael Pineda, Fermin Dizon, William Lee, and Odon Sibug are the
real owners thereof, who authorized 16 Mr. Ranilo M. Arceo (Mr. Arceo) to enter into the
Security Service Contracts 17 with respondent to secure the subject properties. 18
Respondent and Marivalles further insisted that they acted in good faith in denying
petitioners and their agents access to the subject properties as they were merely
complying with a contractual obligation. 19 Moreover, they claimed that the signatures
appearing on the Deeds of Sale, which were the source of petitioners' titles, were
forged and, in fact, a petition for cancellation of petitioners' titles was led by Jose
Bermudo, one of the original holders of the emancipation patent over three (3) parcels
of land in the subject properties, which was still pending before another court. 20
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
Respondent and Marivalles subsequently led their Answer 21 where they added
that petitioners did not suffer any injury as no wrongful act was committed against
them. 22 Accordingly, they prayed that the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit, and
that damages and attorney's fees be awarded to them. 23
On the other hand, TIPCO denied preventing petitioners from entering the subject
properties. It pointed out that it did not claim ownership or possession thereof, and, as
such, did not hire the armed security guards who prevented petitioners from entering
the subject properties. 24
The RTC Ruling
In an Order 25 dated October 6, 2010, the RTC granted the application for WPI
based on its nding that petitioners had presented suf cient evidence to establish that
they are the registered owners of the subject properties and thereby, have the right to
possess the same. It found no merit in respondent's defense that petitioners were not
the real owners of the said properties, observing that the former failed to present the
alleged real owners of the subject properties to support its claim. Accordingly, it
enjoined respondent and the other defendants from interfering with petitioners'
exercise of acts of ownership over the same. 26
Dissatis ed, respondent and TIPCO separately moved for reconsideration, 27 but
were denied in an Order 28 dated August 31, 2011. Consequently, respondent elevated
the case to the CA via a petition for certiorari and prohibition, docketed as CA-G.R. SP
No. 122258. 29
The CA Ruling
In a Decision 30 dated March 25, 2013, the CA reversed the RTC ruling and
thereby, lifted the WPI and ordered the dismissal of petitioners' complaint.
In so ruling, the CA observed, inter alia, that the WPI was intended to oust
respondent and the other defendants from the subject properties, which, under
prevailing jurisprudence, is not allowed where the claimant's title has not been clearly
established by law, as in this case where petitioners' titles are under contest and they
have failed to establish their prior possession of the subject properties. 31 To this, it
emphasized that the purpose of a WPI is to preserve the status quo ante or the last
actual, peaceful, and uncontested status prior to the controversy; but in this case, the
injunctive writ created another situation by transferring the possession of the subject
properties to the petitioners. 32
Further, the CA held that respondent was not a real party in interest as it was
merely contracted to secure the subject properties under the Security Service Contract,
which had since lapsed without being renewed. 33 In this relation, it opined that the
alleged real owners of the subject properties are the real parties in interest, without
whom there can be no nal determination of the issues involved. 34 Thus, the CA
ordered the dismissal of petitioners' complaint.
Aggrieved, petitioners led a motion for reconsideration, 35 which was, however,
denied in a Resolution 36 dated July 22, 2013; hence, the present petition.
The Issue Before the Court
The essential issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA erred in
lifting the WPI issued by the RTC and in dismissing petitioners' complaint.
The Court's Ruling
While it is a general rule that a trial court's discretion in issuing injunctive writs
should not be interfered with, 40 the Court nds the CA's lifting of the WPI issued by the
RTC in this case to be proper, considering that the foregoing parameters were not
observed, thus, tainting the trial court's issuance with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
As aptly pointed out by the CA, although petitioners appear to be the registered
owners of the subject properties, they nonetheless failed to establish that they were in
actual physical possession of the same at the time the incidents in August 2005
transpired. In fact, a cursory perusal of the complaint readily shows that petitioners
never alleged that they were in prior possession of the subject properties. All that was
stated therein is that respondent and the other defendants "[refuse] to recognize and
respect [their] ownership and peaceful possession" of the subject properties. 41
Meanwhile, respondent alleged in its Opposition and Answer that petitioners were not
in possession of the subject properties, and that the real owners thereof have been in
possession of the subject properties since 1996 and 1997. 42 The dispute concerning
the ownership of the subject properties was detailed by the CA as follows: aScITE
In this case, while the alleged real owners of the subject properties may be
considered as real parties in interest for the reason that their supposed rights over
these properties stand to be prejudiced, they are not indispensable parties to the
instant suit. Despite its denomination as an action for "damages' in the complaint's
caption, 53 the action, as may be gleaned from the pleading's allegations, 54 is really one
for injunction as it ultimately seeks to permanently enjoin respondent and the other
defendants, from restricting petitioners' access to the subject properties. 55 The crux
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
of the main case, therefore, is whether or not respondent and said defendants were
justi ed in preventing petitioners from conducting the relocation survey on the subject
properties. Damages are also sought as ancillary relief for the acts complained of.
These issues can be resolved independent of the participation of the alleged real
owners of the subject properties. Hence, they are not indispensable parties, without
whom no final determination can be had.
In any event, even on the assumption that they are indispensable parties, the non-
joinder of indispensable parties is, as above-discussed, still not a ground for the
dismissal of the suit. The proper course of action is for the court to order that they be
impleaded. Only upon refusal of or non-compliance with such directive, may the
complaint be dismissed.
In view of the nature of the case as above-explained, respondent and the other
defendants are real parties in interest. Clearly, they stand to be directly injured by an
adverse judgment. They are the parties against whom the prayed for injunction is
directed and are also alleged to be liable for the resultant damage.
In ne, the petition is partially granted. While the CA's lifting of the WPI is
af rmed, its order dismissing the complaint is reversed. As a consequence, the
complaint should be reinstated and the main case should be remanded to the RTC for
further proceedings. With this pronouncement, there is no need to delve on the ancillary
issues raised herein. HEITAD
3. Id. at 56-57.
4. CA rollo, pp. 48-60.
38. See Almeida v. CA, 489 Phil. 648, 672 (2005); Raspado v. CA, G.R. No. 104782, March 30,
1993, 220 SCRA 650, 653; and Merville Park Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Velez,
273 Phil. 406, 412 (1991).
39. Cortez-Estrada v. Heirs of Samut, 491 Phil. 458, 472 (2005).
40. See Nerwin Industries Corporation v. PNOC-Energy Development Corporation, 685 Phil.
412, 427 (2012); and Land Bank of the Phils. v. Continental Watchman Agency, Inc.,
465 Phil. 607, 618 (2004).
41. Rollo, p. 94.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
42. CA rollo, pp. 70 and 83.
54. "[T]he cause of action in a Complaint is not determined by the designation given to it by
the parties. The allegations in the body of the Complaint de ne or describe it. The
designation or caption is not controlling more than the allegations in the Complaint.
It is not even an indispensable part of the Complaint." Aguilar v. O'Pallick, G.R. No.
182280, July 29, 2013, 702 SCRA 455, 465.
55. Philippine Economic Zone Authority v. Carantes, 635 Phil. 541, 548 (2010).