Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

MICHAEL JACKSON FLORES,

Petitioners-Appellants,

-versus-

HON. SHAQUIRA PIPPEN, in her

Capacity as the Presiding Judge of
the XXXXXXXXXXX, & GABI Case No. CA-G.R.SP No. 123456
CUNETA,
Respondents-Appellees.
x--------------------------------------------------x

URGENT MOTION TO RESOLVE

[APPELLANTS’ APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
(TRO) AND/OR A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION]

Petitioners-Appellants (“Appellants”, for brevity), by counsel,

respectfully state the following:

1. On June x, 201x, the Appellants received an invitation (“Paanyaya”)

from the Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor (PCUP) for
a 2nd pre-demolition conference on June x, 201x with the
Appellants in reference to Civil Case No. 1234, the very case subject
of this Petition. A copy of the Paanyaya is attached as Annex “A.”

1.1 Both the Appellants and the Respondent-Appellee Abrille

(“Appellee”, for brevity) were present with their respective
counsels during the pre-demolition conference where
Appellants reiterated their opposition to the planned demolition
and manifested that the case is currently pending appeal before
the Court of Appeals.

1.2 For her part, the Appellee, through counsel, manifested

her intent to proceed with the demolition notwithstanding the
pendency of the instant case.

1.3 Thus, though made aware of the pending Petition, the

PCUP stated that absent any injunction or restraining order from
 2
Jackson v. Pippen, Cuneta
Urgent Motion to Resolve

the courts, it has no choice but to issue the requisite certificates

that will facilitate eviction/demolition of the Appellants.

1.4 The PCUP further declared that one of the last steps to be
taken before it issues a clearance to proceed with the demolition
is ensuring that a relocation site is provided pursuant to the
President’s ‘no demolition without relocation’ directive.

1.5 The xxxxxx Local Government Unit (LGU) representatives

meanwhile stated that it has a relocation site ready but that it
needs to conduct a survey/census/tagging of the Appellants -
the families within the contested property - to determine if they
will qualify as awardees of the relocation site.

1.6 The LGU representatives declared that its census/tagging

operation will finish within forty-five (45) days OR LESS if it
finds that the families are not eligible for assistance in relocation.

2. With the conclusion of the pre-demolition conference, therefore,

the Writs of Execution and Demolition can be enforced
at any moment; thus, making the Appellants’ eviction from the
property and the demolition of their homes therein IMMINENT.

3. As of this writing, the threat of demolition looms even while the

very question of whether or not the court a quo had jurisdiction to
take cognizance of the ejectment case in the first place – let alone
the validity of the issued writs of execution and demolition - is still
pending resolution before this Honorable Court.

4. The very basis – or lack thereof, of the Appellee’s right to enforce

the Writ of Demolition, proceeding from her alleged right to the
property - or lack thereof, is precisely the gravamen of the Petition
for Certiorari now appealed before this Honorable Court.

5. To date, however, this Honorable Court has not issued any order
or directive relative to the application for the issuance of a TRO
and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction. The Court has neither
directed a hearing for the purpose, nor issued a TRO ex-parte.

6. To reiterate, there is an EXTREME URGENCY and necessity to

preserve the Appellants rights with a TRO/injunction order:

6.1 The DAR has already declared with finality that the
Appellee is disqualified as the agrarian reform
 3
Jackson v. Pippen, Cuneta
Urgent Motion to Resolve

beneficiary (ARB) of the subject property – the very same

one over which she is attempting to enforce the Writ of
Demolition against the Appellants.

6.2 The DAR has likewise declared, with finality, that the
subject lot is vacant, hence proceedings for the
cancellation of Appellee’s title to the subject property have
already been commenced and presently pending before the
DAR.

6.3 Meanwhile, the Appellants have long been in open,

continuous and peaceful possession of the subject property as
tenants of appellee’s predecessor-in-interest, in the concept of
being potential ARBs. Their threatened ejectment will work to
their prejudice because continuing possession is an important
qualification for the eventual award as ARBs by the DAR.

7. More importantly, the Appellants, consisting of EIGHT (8) families

will not only lose their homes if the Writ of Execution and the Writ
of Demolition is enforced while awaiting resolution of the original
Petition but their continued possession will also be interrupted,
removing from them the benefit of continued possession in
qualifying as ARB.

8. Should Appellee proceed with the demolition of the

property, based on a judgment rendered by the court a quo (MTCC)
outside of its jurisdiction, the very subject of the present
Petition and the reliefs sought will be rendered futile and
moot in the event that the Honorable Court finally decides in
favor of the Appellants.

9. Even with an eventual favorable ruling, assuming such is granted,

but without a TRO/injunction to preserve the status quo, the very
evil that the Appellants seek to be prevented – their eviction and
the destruction of their homes - will have already been done, its
damage irreversible.

10. In their Memorandum, the Appellants had already included an

application for TRO and/or preliminary injunction. In support of
their application, the Appellants stated:

“95. Appellants, as farmer beneficiaries,

have a clear right to the reliefs prayed for,
particularly the quashal of the Writ of
Execution and Demolition. Clearly, the
 4
Jackson v. Pippen, Cuneta
Urgent Motion to Resolve

Appellants would be gravely prejudiced and

irreparable injury and damage will be inflicted
upon them if they are ejected from the subject
property, for it is their CONTINUED possession
thereof that is key to their pending
application for award before the DAR.

96. Unless injunctive relief is granted

during the pendency of the instant Appeal, the
implementation of the assailed Writ of
Execution and Demolition as upheld by the
MTCC’s Orders dated 10 December 2015 and 18
March 2016 will, as in fact it has, wreak grave
and irreparable injury upon the Appellants.

97. With the denial of the Appellants’

Motion for reconsideration, there is an extreme
urgency which requires that a Restraining Order
be immediately issued enjoining the
implementation of the Writ of Execution and
Demolition. The private Appellee has filed
before the MTCC a motion seeking assistance
from the PNP Provincial Director for
enforcement of the Writ of Execution and
Demolition.

98. Appellants are ready and willing to file

a bond in favor of the Appellees in such
reasonable amount as the Honorable Court may
fix, conditioned upon Appellants’ undertaking
to pay damages which the Appellee may sustain
by virtue of the issuance of the writ of
injunction and/or restraining order should the
Honorable Court finally decide, after due
proceedings, that Appellants are not entitled
to the reliefs prayed for.” (Emphasis supplied)

11. In the same Memorandum, the Appellants sought the following

reliefs from this Honorable Court:

“PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Appellants

respectfully pray that:

1. A Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) be

issued to restrain and enjoin the courts a
quo from enforcing the Writ of Execution &
Demolition Dated 30 September 2013 issued by
the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial
Court in Cities, xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, her agents,
sheriffs, and any other persons assisting her
or acting on her behalf or interest or under
her control and direction and all other
official, to desist from implementing.
 5
Jackson v. Pippen, Cuneta
Urgent Motion to Resolve

2. After due consideration, said Temporary

Restraining Order be converted into a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction;

3. After submitting the case for decision,

the Resolution dated 07 November 2017 of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 123, xxxxx City
which upheld the Decision dated 12 May 2017
in Civil Case No. 123-2222, be reversed and
set aside;

4. The Orders dated 10 December 2015 and 18

March 2016 as well as the Writ of Execution
dated 30 September 2013, Writ of Execution &
Demolition dated 30 September 2013 and
proceedings before the MTCC in Civil Case No.
1234 be declared null and void.” (Emphasis
supplied)

12. As can be gleaned from the above, the issuance of a TRO or

Injunction Order preserving the rights of the parties – especially
the Appellants and maintaining the status quo is of utmost and
extreme urgency. It would best benefit the Appellants who have
the clear right to continue their long and peaceful possession of the
property, until such time that the Honorable Court finally decides
the merits of the principal case.

13. Again, the Appellants respectfully reiterate that they are ready
and willing to file a bond in favor of the Appellees in such
reasonable amount as the Honorable Court may fix,
conditioned upon Appellants’ undertaking to pay damages which
the Appellee may sustain by virtue of the issuance of the writ of
injunction and/or restraining order should the Honorable Court
finally decide, after due proceedings, that Appellants are not
entitled to the reliefs prayed for.

14. Based on the foregoing, Appellants urgently beg the indulgence of

this Honorable Court to grant the reliefs prayed for.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Petitioner-Appellants respectfully pray that:

1. The Honorable Court resolve the pending application

for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to restrain and
enjoin the court a quo from enforcing the Writ of Execution &
Demolition Dated xx September 201x issued by the Presiding
 6
Jackson v. Pippen, Cuneta
Urgent Motion to Resolve

Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch xxx,

xxxxxxxxxxx, her agents, sheriffs, and any other persons
assisting her or acting on her behalf or interest or under her
control and direction and all other official, to desist from
implementing the Writ of Execution & Demolition;

2. Alternatively, pending resolution of the aforementioned

application and the resolution of the main case, in order to
preserve the rights of the Appellants and prevent the subject
matter from becoming moot and academic, to issue an ex-
parte TRO pursuant to the first paragraph of Section 5, Rule
58 of the Rules of Court, to restrain and enjoin the court
a quo from enforcing the Writ of Execution &
Demolition Dated xx September 201x issued by the
Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch
xx, xxxxxxxxxx, her agents, sheriffs, and any other persons
assisting her or acting on her behalf or interest or under her
control and direction and all other officials, to desist from
implementing the Writ of Execution & Demolition in whole
or in part;

3. Before the expiration of the ex-parte TRO abovementioned, if

granted, to issue a regular TRO for the same purposes;

4. Thereafter, upon due consideration, before the lapse of the

effectivity of the said TRO and after complying with the
prescribed procedure, issue a writ of PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION to serve the same purpose as the TRO but this
time without any limitation in its period of effectivity;

5. And, upon due consideration:

a.) REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Resolution dated xx

November 201x of the Regional Trial Court, Branch xxxx,
xxxxx City which upheld the Decision dated xx May 201x
in Civil Case No. 123-3456;

b.) Declare NULL and VOID the Orders of the MTCC dated
xx December 201x and xx March 201x as well as the Writ
of Execution dated xx September 201x, Writ of Execution
& Demolition dated xx September 201x and all
proceedings before the MTCC in Civil Case No. 1234.

Other just and equitable reliefs are also prayed for.

 7
Jackson v. Pippen, Cuneta
Urgent Motion to Resolve

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

xxxxxx City for City of Manila; xx June 201x.

Xxxxxxxxxxxx Law Office

Co-counsel for the Petitioner-Appellants
Address here
Email: email@gmail.com

LAW OFFICE OF ATTY. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Co-counsel for the Petitioner-Appellants
Address here
Email: atty@gmail.com

By:

LAWYER A
Roll of Attorneys No. xxxxxx
IBP No. 1234567/ 01-05-xx/xxxxxx
PTR No. 1234567/01-05-xx/xxxxxx
MCLE Compliance No. V-1234567 / xx-xx-xx

LAWYER B
Roll of Attorneys No. xxxxxx
IBP No. 1234567/ 01-05-xx/xxxxxx
PTR No. 1234567/01-05-xx/xxxxxx
MCLE Compliance No. V-1234567 / xx-xx-xx

LAWYER C
Roll of Attorneys No. xxxxxx
IBP No. 1234567/ 01-05-xx/xxxxxx
PTR No. 1234567/01-05-xx/xxxxxx
MCLE Compliance No. V-1234567 / xx-xx-xx

Verification follows on the next page

 8
Jackson v. Pippen, Cuneta
Urgent Motion to Resolve
 9
Jackson v. Pippen, Cuneta
Urgent Motion to Resolve
 10
Jackson v. Pippen, Cuneta
Urgent Motion to Resolve

Copy furnished by registered mail:

KALABAN LAW FIRM

Counsel for Appellee
Address of Kalaban, xxxxxxx

Presiding Judge,
RTC, Branch xxxx, xxxxxxxxx
RTC Building, Brgy. xxxxxxxxxx, xxxxxx

Presiding Judge,
MTCC, Branch xxx, xxxxxxxx
MTC Building, xxxxxxx

EXPLANATION [AS TO MODE OF SERVICE]

Atty. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Clerk of Court
Court of Appeals

Greetings! Service of the foregoing Motion on the parties cannot be done personally on account of time
constraints, and lack of resources and hence the resort to service by mail. Thank you.

LAWYER ABC