In the case of City of Makati v. Hon. Judge Briccio C. Ygaña and Municipality of Taguig, the Supreme Court ruled that a preliminary injunction issued to prevent Makati from exercising jurisdiction over the “Inner Fort” remained valid, despite Makati’s amendment of its answer in the underlying territorial dispute case. The Court held that the prior resolution upholding the injunction was the “law of the case,” and the amendment of the answer did not change the facts upon which the injunction was based. This decision clarifies the application of the “law of the case” doctrine in the context of preliminary injunctions and territorial disputes, emphasizing the importance of finality in judicial determinations.

Makati vs. Taguig: Can Amended Pleadings Dissolve a Final Injunction?

The legal battle between the City of Makati and the Municipality (now City) of Taguig over portions of Fort Bonifacio, specifically the “Inner Fort,” has a long and complex history. It began with Taguig filing a complaint to confirm its territory and challenge presidential proclamations that placed parts of Fort Bonifacio within Makati’s jurisdiction. As part of this action, Taguig sought and obtained a preliminary injunction to prevent Makati from exercising authority over the disputed areas. This injunction became the focal point of numerous legal maneuvers, including appeals and amended pleadings. The central legal question is whether the amendment of Makati’s answer in the original case could render a previously issued and upheld preliminary injunction ineffective, based on the doctrine of “functus officio” or the “law of the case.”

The dispute initially escalated when the Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted Taguig’s request for a preliminary injunction. This injunction aimed to prevent Makati from expanding its jurisdiction over both a 74-hectare farmland area and the “Inner Fort.” Makati contested this decision, leading to a review by the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA initially nullified the entire preliminary injunction but later modified its stance. In the Jacinto Resolution, the CA reinstated the injunction, specifically concerning the “Inner Fort.” This reinstatement was based on Makati’s initial answer where it appeared to concede that it was not exercising jurisdiction over the “Inner Fort.” This resolution became final, seemingly settling the matter of the injunction.

However, Makati later sought to amend its answer to assert that it did, in fact, exercise jurisdiction over certain barangays (Northside and Southside) within the “Inner Fort.” This led to another round of litigation, culminating in the Dacudao Decision, which allowed Makati to amend its answer. Makati then argued that the amendment effectively nullified the basis for the preliminary injunction because its original admission of non-exercise of jurisdiction was no longer valid. Makati contended that the preliminary injunction had become functus officio. The term functus officio means “having performed its office” and suggests that the injunction should no longer have any effect.

The Supreme Court disagreed with Makati’s argument. The Court emphasized that the Dacudao Decision and the Jacinto Resolution addressed distinct legal issues. The Dacudao Decision focused solely on whether Makati should be allowed to amend its answer, while the Jacinto Resolution definitively ruled on the propriety of the preliminary injunction. The Court reasoned that allowing the amendment to invalidate the injunction would undermine the finality of the Jacinto Resolution. The court emphasized that the issues in the Dacudao Decision and Jacinto Resolution were entirely separate, and the resolution of one could not extinguish the other.

The Supreme Court further invoked the doctrine of the “law of the case.” This doctrine dictates that when an appellate court resolves a question and remands the case to the lower court, the settled question becomes the law of the case for any subsequent appeals. In this context, the Jacinto Resolution established that the preliminary injunction was proper. As the Court stated:

“[W]hatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule or decision between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of the case, whether correct on general principles or not, so long as the facts on which such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court.”

The Court found that there was no change in the underlying facts that would justify deviating from the “law of the case.” The amendment of Makati’s answer did not alter the facts but merely changed the allegations. The Court emphasized that a decision’s basis cannot be erased simply by amending a pleading, especially after the judgment has become final. This highlighted the importance of upholding the finality of judicial decisions. The Court’s adherence to the “law of the case” doctrine ensures stability and predictability in legal proceedings.

Moreover, the Supreme Court clarified that the Jacinto Resolution did not rely solely on Makati’s admissions in its original answer. The Court found that the appellate court also considered other evidence, including documentary evidence and witness testimonies, in determining that Makati was not exercising jurisdiction over the “Inner Fort.” Consequently, the preliminary injunction was aimed at preserving the status quo. The Supreme Court cited the trial court’s initial order granting the preliminary injunction, which stated:

“From all the foregoing documentary evidence and assertions by plaintiff’s two (2) witnesses, this Court is convinced that defendant Makati is indeed threatening plaintiff’s right over the 74 hectares of farmlands subject of this controversy and also threatening to include in its territory and expand its jurisdiction to the ‘Inner Fort’ or military camp proper, the areas over which the injunctive relief is being sought for.”

Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the trial court’s denial of Makati’s motion. The preliminary injunction over the “Inner Fort” remained in effect. The ruling underscores the principle that preliminary injunctions, once properly issued and upheld, remain valid unless there is a substantial change in the underlying facts or legal circumstances.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the preliminary injunction preventing Makati from exercising jurisdiction over the “Inner Fort” was still valid after Makati amended its answer in the underlying territorial dispute case. The court needed to determine if the amendment rendered the injunction functus officio.
What is a preliminary injunction?	A preliminary injunction is a court order that restrains a party from performing certain acts until the court can decide on the merits of the case. It is meant to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm.
What does “functus officio” mean?	Functus officio is a Latin term meaning “having performed its office.” In legal terms, it means that a court or tribunal has fulfilled its function and no longer has the authority to act on the matter.
What is the “law of the case” doctrine?	The “law of the case” doctrine states that when an appellate court decides a legal issue and remands the case to a lower court, the appellate court’s decision becomes binding on all subsequent proceedings in the same case. This promotes consistency and efficiency in the legal process.
Why did Makati argue that the injunction was no longer valid?	Makati argued that because it was allowed to amend its answer to claim jurisdiction over barangays in the “Inner Fort,” its original admission of non-exercise of jurisdiction was nullified. Therefore the basis for the injunction had disappeared.
What was the Court’s reasoning for upholding the injunction?	The Court reasoned that the Jacinto Resolution, which upheld the injunction, was the “law of the case.” The amendment of Makati’s answer did not change the underlying facts. The injunction was supported by evidence beyond Makati’s initial admissions.
What evidence supported the preliminary injunction?	Aside from Makati’s admission in its original answer of non-exercise of jurisdiction over the “Inner Fort,” the trial court also relied on the numerous documentary evidence presented by Taguig in tandem with the declarations of witnesses Esmeraldo Ramos and Eriberto V. Almazan
What is the practical implication of this ruling?	This ruling reinforces the importance of respecting final judicial determinations and highlights the limits of amending pleadings to overturn established legal rulings. It ensures that preliminary injunctions, once properly issued, remain effective unless there are substantial changes in the underlying facts.

This case provides valuable insights into the interplay between preliminary injunctions, amended pleadings, and the “law of the case” doctrine. It emphasizes the importance of upholding the finality of judicial decisions and respecting the established legal rules within ongoing litigation. This decision serves as a reminder that altering allegations does not automatically negate previous judicial determinations, especially when those determinations are supported by evidence and have become the “law of the case.”

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: CITY OF MAKATI VS. THE HON. JUDGE BRICCIO C. YGAÑA, G.R. No. 168781, September 14, 2007