There is a common misunderstanding that a temporary restraining order
(TRO) or preliminary injunction may benefit even those who are not parties to
the suit. On the contrary however, TRO/preliminary injunction, as a general
rule, is in personam only and can
bind only those who are parties to the litigation. In that regard, only the
applicant/s for TRO/injunction can seek the court’s protection.
In the case of Pineda v. Santiago, “the INK sought from the RTC a
second alias writ of execution to implement the judgment in Calalang against
Conrado Pineda (Pineda), et. al. In opposing the
issuance of such writ, Pineda, et al., asserted that they held
titles to Lot 671 adverse to those of Lucia and INK and that they
were not parties in De la Cruz or in Calalang. In
its assailed order, the RTC granted the second alias writ of execution on the
basis that the issue of ownership of Lot 671 was already determined
with finality in favor of Lucia and INK. The writ ordered the deputy
sheriff to eject Pineda, et al., from Lot 671. When
the matter was brought before us (the Supreme Court), we annulled the assailed
order as the writ of execution issued was against Pineda, et al.,
who were not parties to Civil Case No. Q-45767, the ejectment suit instituted
by De Leon, et al. We elaborated in Pineda that:
Being a suit for injunction, Civil Case No. Q-45767
partakes of an action in personam. In Domagas
v. Jensen, we have explained the nature of an action in personam and enumerated some
actions and proceedings which are in personam, viz:
“The settled rule is
that the aim and object of an action determine its character. Whether a
proceeding is in rem, or in personam, or quasi in rem for that matter, is
determined by its nature and purpose, and by these only. A proceeding in personam is a proceeding to
enforce personal rights and obligations brought against the person and is based
on the jurisdiction of the person, although it may involve his right to, or the
exercise of ownership of, specific property, or seek to compel him to control
or dispose of it in accordance with the mandate of the court. The purpose of
a proceeding in personam is to impose, through the
judgment of a court, some responsibility or liability directly upon the person
of the defendant. Of
this character are suits to compel a defendant to specifically perform some act
or actions to fasten a pecuniary liability on him. An
action in personam is said to be one which has for its
object a judgment against the person, as distinguished from a judgment against
the propriety to determine its state. It has been held that an action in personam is
a proceeding to enforce personal rights or obligations; such action is brought
against the person. As
far as suits for injunctive relief are concerned, it is well-settled that it is
an injunctive act in personam.
In Combs v. Combs, the appellate court held that proceedings to
enforce personal rights and obligations and in which personal judgments are
rendered adjusting the rights and obligations between the affected parties
is in personam. Actions for recovery of real property
are in personam.”
The respondent
judge's jurisdiction is, therefore, limited to the parties in the injunction suit. To stress, the
petition for injunction,
docketed as Civil Case No. Q-45767, was filed only by therein
petitioners Augusto M. de Leon, Jose de Castro, Jose A. Panlilio, Felicidad
Vergara Vda. De Pineda, Fernando L. Vitug I, Fernando M. Vitug II, Fernando M.
Vitug III, and Faustino Tobia, and later amended to include Elena Ostrea and
Feliza C. Cristobal-Generoso as additional petitioners therein, against Bishop
Eraño Manalo, in his capacity as titular and spiritual head of I.N.K. Herein
petitioners Conrado Pineda, et al. never became parties thereto.
Any and all orders and writs of execution, which the respondent judge may issue
in that case can, therefore, be enforced only against those parties and not
against the herein petitioners Conrado Pineda, et al. In
issuing the assailed Order dated 22 April 1998, which directed the issuance of
the 2nd Alias Writ of Execution to eject non-parties (herein petitioners), the
respondent judge clearly went out of bounds and committed grave abuse of
discretion.
The nature of
the injunction suit
— Civil Case No. Q-45767 — as an action in personam in the RTC remains
to be the same whether it is elevated to the CA or to this Court for
review. An action in personam does
not become an action in rem just because a pronouncement
confirming I.N.K.'s title to Lot 671 was made by this Court in
the Calalang decision. Final rulings may be made by
this Court, as the Highest Court of the Land, in actions in personam but
such rulings are binding only as against the parties therein and not against
the whole world. Here
lies another grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent judge when
he relied on the Calalang decision in his assailed Order dated
07 May 1998 as if it were binding against the whole world, saying:
“After evaluating the
arguments of both parties, decisive on the incident is the decision of the
Supreme Court in favor of the respondent I.N.K., represented by its titular and
spiritual head Bishop Eraño G. Manalo, sustaining its ownership over the
subject Lot 671. This Court could do no less but to follow and give
substantial meaning to its ownership which shall include all dominical rights
by way of a Writ of Execution. To delay the issuance of such writ is a denial
of justice due the I.N.K.”
As a final word, this
decision shall not be misinterpreted as disturbing or modifying our ruling
in Calalang. The final ruling on I.N.K.'s ownership and
title is not at all affected. Private respondent I.N.K., as the true and
lawful owner of Lot 671 as ruled by the Court in Calalang, simply
has to file the proper action against the herein petitioners to enforce its
property rights within the bounds of the law and our rules. I.N.K.'s
recourse of asking for the issuance of an alias writ of execution against the
petitioners in Civil Case No. Q-45767 and the respondent
judge's orders in said case, granting I.N.K.'s prayer and enforcing the alias
writ of execution against the present petitioners, constitutes blatant
disregard of very fundamental rules and must therefore be stricken down.” (Emphases
by the Supreme Court.)
To summarize and as a general
rule then, a restraining order, like injunction, operates upon a person as it is
granted in exercise of equity jurisdiction; it has no in rem effect.
