The recall of the TRO paved the way for the assumption of Vice Mayor Santiago "Santy" Austria as this town’s mayor.

The resolution recalling the TRO was signed by CA Associate Justice Lucenita N. Tagle and concurred in by Associate Justices Conrado M. Vasquez Jr. and Amelita G. Tolentino of the CA’s second division.

Mayor Esquivel said that at 3:30 p.m. last Friday that he had not received an official copy of the CA order.

The CA resolution, dated Feb. 8, has been circulating here since last Thursday although it had yet to be officially served on Esquivel who has remained in office since the issuance of a TRO last Jan. 30.

The issuance of the TRO by the CA was objected to earlier by the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) on the ground that the Ombudsman’s decision dismissing Esquivel from office was "final and executory."

Esquivel was found guilty by the Ombudsman of grave abuse of authority when he dismissed three members of the board of directors of the Jaen water district, which is the subject of the TRO.

The DILG had contended that the Ombudsman’s decision ordering the dismissal of Esquivel from office was already implemented on Jan. 15, 2007.

The ground raised by the DILG in its urgent motion to immediately recall the TRO was that the act sought to be enjoined "has already been consummated."

It added that Esquivel failed to show any clear right to entitle him to an injunctive relief, adding that the "Ombudsman has the power to discipline and remove elective local government officials."

To reenforce its argument, it cited the case of Datumanong, G.R. No. 150274, Aug. 4, 2006, in which the Supreme Court "upheld the right of the office of the Ombudsman to immediately execute its decision of dismissal of a public official pending appeal."

Noting SC’s decision on the Datumanong case, CA said the "decisions of the Ombudsman are immediately executory, coupled with the power of the Ombudsman to discipline and remove erring elective local government officials."

The CA stated that the claim of Esquivel that he has a right to stay in his position as mayor becomes doubtful.

In junking the injunctive relief sought by Esquivel, the CA said the following requisites must be present:

The invasion of the right is material and substantial; the right of complainant is clear and unmistakable; and there is an urgent and paramount necessity for a writ to prevent serious damage.

It also said: "The possibility of irreparable damage without proof of actual existing right is no ground for an injunction."