In a six-page order dated Monday, Dec. 22, Presiding Judge Shirley L. Magsipoc-Pagalilauan denied Lacuna’s motion for a "status quo ante order" and writ of preliminary injunction, saying the relief sought would prematurely resolve the main issues of the case.
The court ruled that Lacuna failed to establish a “clear and unmistakable right” that would justify the issuance of injunctive relief at this stage of the proceedings, noting that the dispute involves factual and legal issues that must first be fully heard and resolved.
It further held that recognizing Lacuna as Liga president and ex-officio member of the Manila City Council while the case is pending would amount to a prejudgment of the merits of her petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus.
“Finding in favor of the existence of a clear and unmistakable right in favor of petitioners and invasion of such right at this stage of the proceedings is tantamount to a prejudgment of the main case,” the court said in its order.
The court stressed that it is a well-established rule that courts should refrain from issuing a writ of preliminary injunction if doing so would effectively dispose of the main case without trial.
Lacuna had asked the RTC to nullify the November 10 special election that resulted in the proclamation of a new set of Liga officers and led to her removal as an ex-officio member of the Manila City Council.
The ruling arose from Lacuna’s legal challenge against Manila Mayor Francisco "Isko Moreno" Domagoso, Vice Mayor Chi Atienza, and other city and Liga officials, whom she accused of illegally orchestrating her ouster from the barangay league.
She claimed that the City Council’s recognition of the new Liga leadership, following their oath-taking before Domagoso, was part of a conspiracy to remove her from office.
The Manila local government has denied the allegations, maintaining that the election reflected the will of 844 out of 896 barangay chairpersons and emphasizing that “mere allegations are not synonymous with truth.”
The court noted that the principal petition remains pending and will be resolved only after a full consideration of the arguments and evidence presented by all parties.