12. BORJA V. JUDGE SALCEDO Administrative Circular No. 20-95 provides: 1.

Where an application for temporary restraining order (TRO) or writ of preliminary injunction is included in a complaint or any initiatory pleading filed with the trial court, such complaint or initiatory pleading shall be raffled only after notice to the adverse party and in the presence of such party or counsel. 2. The application for a TRO shall be acted upon only after all parties are heard in a summary hearing conducted within twenty-four (24) hours after the records are transmitted to the branch selected by raffle. The records shall be transmitted immediately after raffle. 3. If the matter is of extreme urgency, such that unless a TRO is issued, grave injustice and irreparable injury will arise, the Executive Judge shall issue the TRO effective only for seventy-two (72) hours from issuance but shall immediately summon the parties for conference and immediately raffle the case in their presence. Thereafter, before the expiry of the seventy-two (72) hours, the Presiding Judge to whom the case is assigned shall conduct a summary hearing to determine whether the TRO can be extended for another period until a hearing in the pending application for preliminary injunction can be conducted. In no case shall the total period of the TRO exceed twenty (20) days, including the original seventy-two (72) hours, for the TRO issued by the Executive Judge. 4. With the exception of the provisions which necessarily involve multiple-sala stations, these rules shall apply to single-sala stations especially with regard to immediate notice to all parties of all applications for TRO. The reason for this is that Administrative Circular No. 20-95 aims to restrict the ex parte issuance of a TRO to cases of extreme urgency in order to avoid grave injustice and irreparable injury. [19] The rule holds that before a temporary restraining order may be issued, all parties must be heard in a summary hearing first, after the records are transmitted to the branch selected by raffle. The only instance when a TRO may be issued ex parte is when the matter is of such extreme urgency that grave injustice and irreparable injury will arise unless it is issued immediately. Under such circumstance, the Executive Judge shall issue the TRO effective for 72 hours only. The Executive Judge shall then summon the parties to a conference during which the case should be raffled in their presence. Before the lapse of the 72 hours, the Presiding Judge to whom the case was raffled shall then conduct a summary hearing to determine whether the TRO can be extended for another period until the application for preliminary injunction can be heard, which period shall in no case exceed 20 days including the original 72 hours. Clearly, respondent Judge Salcedo as presiding judge of Branch 32 to which Civil Case No. SP-5775 (01) was raffled, erred in issuing the questioned TRO without conducting the necessary hearing first. Only the executive judge may issue a TRO ex parte, under exceptional circumstances and following a specified procedure herein-abovementioned. In meting out the correct penalty, we considered the following cases: Judge, to abide by Administrative Circular No. 20-95 in issuing the TRO constituted grave abuse of authority, misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice for which reason, a fine of P5,000.00 was imposed on respondent judge 13. Sayson v. Judge Zerna The Circular aims to restrict the ex parte issuance of a TRO only to cases of extreme urgency, in order to avoid grave injustice and irreparable injury.[7] Such TRO shall be issued only by the executive judge and shall take effect only for seventy-two (72) hours from its issuance. Furthermore, within the said period, a summary hearing shall be conducted to determine whether the Order can be extended for another period until a hearing on the pending application for preliminary injunction can be conducted. Untenable is respondent judges contention that the Circular allows an executive judge, in case of extreme urgency, to issue an ex parte TRO effective for twenty days. Judges should be diligent in keeping abreast of developments in law and jurisprudence, consistent with the mandate that the study of law is a never-ending process.[8] In Golangco v. Villanueva,[9] the Court held that the judges disregard of the Supreme Courts pronouncem ent on TROs was not just ignorance of the prevailing rule, but also misconduct and grave abuse of authority. To be punishable, however, ignorance of the law must be motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption. [10] We find bad faith and

Adao vs. Judge Lorenzo[20] where this Court pronounced that the failure of respondent therein, as an Executive

dishonesty on the part of respondent judge. He avers in his Comment that there was extreme urgency in the ex parte TRO because the prawns, which were subject to spoilage were perishable; and the buyer was already waiting for the harvest. But Napoleon Lees Complaint did not contain such allegations. Nowhere was there any mention of the immediate need of harvesting prawns or any produce from the disputed property. Obviously, respondent is now clutching at straws. He had no justifiable reason at all in immediately issuing the 20-day TRO. Besides, the TRO was clearly rushed. Just a day after the plaintiffs Complaint was filed on the afternoon of June 7, 1996 the TRO was issued and served on herein complainant, without any effort to notify the defendants or to schedule a summary hearing. 14. DELBROS HOTEL CORP. V. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET. AL. Whether or not paragraph 8 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines promulgated by this Court relative to the implementation of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1981 applies to the Court of Appeals. The provision in the Interim Rules and Guidelines adverted to reads in full thus-. 8. Preliminary injunction not granted without notice; issuance of restraining order. No preliminary injunction shall be granted without notice to the defendant. if it shall appear from the facts shown by affidavits or by verified complaint, that great or irreparable injury would result to the applicant before the matter can be heard on notice, the Court to which the application for preliminary injunction was made, may issue a restraining order to be effective only for a period of twenty days from date of its issuance, Within said twenty day period, the court must cause an order to be served on the defendant, requiring him to show cause, at a specified time and place, why the injunction should not be granted, and determine within the same period whether or not the preliminary injunction shall be granted, and shall accordingly issue the corresponding order. In the event that the application for preliminary injunction is denied, the restraining order is deemed automatically vacated. The applicability of the above-quoted provision to the then Intermediate Appellate Court, now the Court of Appeals, can hardly be doubted. The Interim Rules and Guidelines were promulgated to implement the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1981 18 which included the Intermediate Appellate Court among the courts reorganized thereunder. This is emphasized in the preamble of the Interim Rules which states that the same shall apply to "all inferior courts according to the Constitution.' The term 'inferior courts' as used therein refers to all courts except the Supreme Court, the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals. Thus, paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Interim Rules expressedly provide for "Procedure in the Intermediate Appellate Court. " Indeed, if paragraph 8 of the Interim Rules were not intended to apply to temporary restraining orders issued by the respondent Court, there would have been absolutely no reason for the inclusion of said paragraph in the Interim Rules. The limited life-span of temporary restraining orders issued by the regional trial courts and municipal trial courts is already provided for in B.P. Blg. 224. It was precisely to include the Intermediate Appellate Court within the same limitation as to the effectivity of its temporary restraining orders that B.P. Blg. 224 was incorporated in the Interim Rules, with the significant change of the word "judge" to "court", so as to make it clear and unequivocal that the temporary restraining orders contemplated therein are those issued not only by trial judges but also by justices of the appellate court. Private respondents argue that it is impractical to apply paragraph 8 of the Interim Rules to the respondent court because the latter's processes are enforceable throughout the country and there could be instances when the twenty-day period of the effectivity of a temporary restraining order would lapse before it is served on the parties concerned. This allegation appears to be more illusory and imaginary than real. Private respondents have not cited any single, actual instance when such eventuality had occurred. Its possibility is deemed remote and unlikely considering the present state of fast and efficient modes of communication as well as the presumed eagerness of a party-litigant who has secured a temporary restraining order to have the same immediately served on the parties concerned with the least waste of time. 15. VELASCO, ET. AL. V. CA Based on reports that several crates of plywood were being hauled out of the premises of STA. CLARA by the Diplomas in violation of the temporary restraining order issued by this Court, Joseymour Ecobiza, Deputy Sheriff of RTC-Br. 13, Davao City, accompanied by Atty. Bernabe Alabastro, caused to be seized on 26 October 1987 eleven (11) crates of plywood

allegedly being transported to Tefasco Wharf at Ilang, Davao City. These crates had the markings of STA. CLARA and Firmwood Development Corporation (FIRMWOOD for brevity). Deputy Sheriff Joseymour Ecobiza executed an affidavit that the seizure was effected pursuant to the temporary restraining order issued by this Court against the Diplomas and STA. CLARA. The trial court as well as the Court of Appeals found as undisputably settled based on the records that the right of possession of the eleven (11) crates of plywood belonged to respondents STA. CLARA and/or FIRMWOOD and the only disagreement of the parties was that the property could not be disposed of by respondent STA. CLARA because of the temporary restraining order issued by this Court on 4 September 1987 which allegedly gave authority to petitioner Deputy Sheriff Ecobiza to seize the crates of plywood necessary to protect the outcome of Civil Case No. 18567-87. In rendering summary judgment in favor of private respondents in the replevin case, the trial court found them to be entitled to the possession of the subject property wrongfully detained by petitioners as the temporary restraining order from which they derived their authority to seize the property had already been lifted and set aside. Petitioners allege that during the time they effected the seizure of the plywood they had the authority to do so as they were implementing the temporary restraining order which was then in full force and effect. This contention has no merit. It is a basic procedural postulate that a preliminary injunction which necessarily includes a temporary restraining order should never be used to transfer the possession or control of a thing to a party who did not have such possession or control at the inception of the case. [12] The temporary restraining order issued by this Court on 4 September 1987 merely restrained respondent STA. CLARA and all its agents and representatives from withdrawing and disposing of the plywood inventory in STA. CLARAs plant or warehouse until further orders from this Court. [13] The order did not contain any directive whatsoever to any of the petitioners to seize property belonging to STA. CLARA or to keep the property seized in their possession. The petitioners, by what they did, took the law into their own hands without any specific order from this Court; hence, the seizure made by them on 26 October 1987 was void and illegal even if the intention of petitioners was to prevent the alleged violation of the temporary restraining order. Any violation of the injunction or temporary restraining order which is in full force or effect constitutes contempt of court and is punishable as such, and the remedy of the aggrieved party is to institute contempt proceedings where the court in appropriate cases may punish the violator for the purpose of preserving and enforcing the rights of the persons for whose protection the injunction or restraining order was granted. Clearly, with the subsequent lifting of the temporary restraining order the subject crates of plywood seized by petitioners devoid of legal authority were never placed at any time under custodia legis that would prevent private respondents from recovering their possession over the same. The amount of damages directed by the trial court to be paid to private respondents by petitioners arising from the wrongful taking of the property is a factual matters binding and conclusive upon this Court. 16. PAUL HENDRIK TICSON, ET. AL. V. VIDEO POST MANILA, INC. Petitioners' contention is based on the notion that the appellate court had prejudged the case before it was heard on the merits. 13 However, it is clear from the ruling of the CA that what was declared moot and academic was the issue of whether the lower court had erred in granting the questioned Writ of Preliminary Injunction. Hence, the appellate court held that there was no longer any reason to decide whether the respondent judge erred in issuing the Writ. 14 It was that question, 15 not the entire case, that its Decision declared moot. Its subsequent Resolution denying petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was of the same tenor.1avvphi1 Of course, the CA Decision would have been clearer had it also ordered the remand of the case for hearing on the main claim for damages. 16 However, the fact remains: the question regarding the issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction was rendered moot by the expiration of the prohibition contained in Clause 5 of the employment contracts. 17 We thus agree with the ruling of the CA. But we stress that the mootness applies only to the issue of the trial court's grant of the provisional remedy assailed by petitioners. Having become moot, the issue was correctly ignored by the appellate court. We have said in Bacolod-Murcia Planters' Association, Inc. v. Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc.: 18 While the assertion made by appellants that a resolution of the question of law raised could indeed provide future guidance of judges and of attorneys, we are called upon to act and to decide only lawsuits wherein there still remains an actual and antagonistic assertion of rights by one party against the other in a controversy wherein judicial intervention is unavoidable. We are not called upon to render mere advisory opinions.

Indeed, there was no longer any purpose 19 in determining whether the trial court's issuance of the Writ amounted to grave abuse of discretion. The period within which the petitioners were prohibited from engaging in or working for an enterprise that competed with the respondent the very purpose of the preliminary injunction had expired. 20 Hence, any declaration upholding the propriety of the Writ would have been entirely useless. Having outlived its purpose, it had already become functus oficio. The prohibition and, necessarily, the Writ were effective only for two years. This period began in November 1995 and ended November 1997. Similarly, even if we say that the injunction was invalid, it would be in vain, as petitioners are now free to seek employment wherever they want to, the two-year prohibition period having already lapsed. Therefore, we hold that there is no actual case or controversy between the parties 21 insofar as the preliminary injunction is concerned. Indeed, courts should not take cognizance of moot and academic questions, subject to notable exceptions involving constitutional issues. 17. BACOLOD CITY WATER DISTRICT V. LABAYEN It can be gleaned from the foregoing that both parties and respondent trial court have consistently referred to the directive as a temporary restraining order. It was only in the respondent courts assailed Decision that the Order was referred to as a preliminary injunction, viz: xxx This Court therefore grants the final injunction prayed for restraining the respondent from the commission of the act complained of for the year 2001 and hereby confirming the preliminary injunction previously ordered. xxx
42

(emphasis supplied)

Again, it was only when petitioner expressed its vehement objection on the ruling that the final injunction confirmed the preliminary injunction previously issued, when the respondent City and the respondent trial court started to insist that the questioned Order was a preliminary injunction. Given the previous undeviating references to it as a temporary restraining order, respondents cannot now consider it as a preliminary injunction to justify the validity of the assailed Decision. The attendant facts and circumstances clearly show that the respondent trial court issued a temporary restraining order. Second. Injunction is a judicial writ, process or proceeding whereby a party is ordered to do or refrain from doing a certain act. It may be the main action or merely a provisional remedy for and as an incident in the main action. 43 The main action for injunction is distinct from the provisional or ancillary remedy of preliminary injunction which cannot exist except only as part or an incident of an independent action or proceeding. As a matter of course, in an action for injunction, the auxiliary remedy of preliminary injunction, whether prohibitory or mandatory, may issue. Under the law, the main action for injunction seeks a judgment embodying a final injunction which is distinct from, and should not be confused with, the provisional remedy of preliminary injunction, the sole object of which is to preserve the status quo until the merits can be heard.44 A preliminary injunction is granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order. It persists until it is dissolved or until the termination of the action without the court issuing a final injunction.45 A restraining order, on the other hand, is issued to preserve the status quo until the hearing of the application for preliminary injunction which cannot be issued ex parte. Under Rule 5846 of the Rules of Court, a judge may issue a temporary restraining order with a limited life of twenty (20) days from date of issue. If before the expiration of the twenty (20)-day period the application for preliminary injunction is denied, the temporary restraining order would be deemed automatically vacated. If no action is taken by the judge on the application for preliminary injunction within the said twenty (20) days, the temporary restraining order would automatically expire on the 20th day by the sheer force of law, no judicial declaration to that effect being necessary. 47 Hence, in the case at bar, since no preliminary injunction was issued, the temporary restraining order granted automatically expired after twenty (20) days under the Rules. The fact that respondent court merely ordered "the respondent[,] its agents, representatives or any person acting in his behalf to stop, desist and refrain from implementing in their billings the new water rate increase which will start on March 1, 2000" 48 without stating the period for the restraint does not convert the temporary restraining order to a preliminary injunction.

The rule against the non-extendibility of the twenty (20)-day limited period of effectivity of a temporary restraining order is absolute if issued by a regional trial court. The failure of respondent court to fix a period for the ordered restraint did not lend the temporary restraining order a breath of semi-permanence which can only be characteristic of a preliminary injunction. The twenty (20)-day period provided by the Rules of Court should be deemed incorporated in the Order where there is an omission to do so. It is because of this rule on non-extendibility that respondent City was prompted to move that hearings be set for its application of a preliminary injunction. Respondent City cannot take advantage of this omission by respondent trial court. Third. Even if we assume that the issued Order was a preliminary injunction, petitioner is correct in contending that the assailed Decision is premature. The records reveal that respondent court did not resolve petitioners Motion for Reconsideration of the Order denying its Motion to Dismiss before it issued the assailed Decision. Consequently, there was no answer filed by petitioner, no joinder of issues, no mandatory pre-trial conference, and no trial on the merits, yet, a Decision was handed down by the respondent trial court. The short circuiting of the procedural process denied the petitioner due process of law. It was not able to allege its defenses in an answer and prove them in a hearing. The convoluted procedure allowed by the respondent trial court and the pleadings filed by the parties which are not models of clarity certainly created confusion. But this confusion should not be seized as a reason to deny a party the constitutional right to due process. Over and above every desideratum in litigation is fairness. All doubts should be resolved in favor of fairness. 18. CENTRAL BANK ET. AL. VS. CA, ET. AL. Pursuant to its authority under the Central Bank Act, the Monetary Board of the Central Bank adopted on May 22,1987, Resolution No. 505(i) placing the Manila Banking Corporation (Manila Bank) under receivership after finding that the had bank had become insolvent. On May 29, 1987, Manila Bank filed in the regional trial court of Manila a complaint to set aside the resolution and secured on July 14, 1987, after hearing, a writ of preliminary injunction against its enforcement upon posting by the plaintiff of a bond in the sum of P10,000,000.00. On July 16,1987, the Central Bank moved for the lifting of the injunction, posting a counterbond of P20,000,000.00 in accordance with Section 29 of the Central Bank Act. The motion was denied, prompting the Central Bank to elevate the matter to the Court of Appeals, where the trial court was sustained by a 3-2 vote of the special ninth division. The Central Bank then came to this Court on certiorari under Rule 65' to challenge the decision of the Court of Appeals as tainted with grave abuse of discretion. We reverse. The applicable law is Section 29 which clearly expresses the mandate and intention of the legislature. The language is plain and unequivocal, leaving no doubt that the court is under obligation . to dissolve the injunction once the counterbond in the required amount is posted. Commenting on injunctions in general under Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, Chief Justice Moran observed that "a wide latitude is given by this provision to the trial judge to grant, refuse, continue, modify or dissolve the injunction as justice may require." 1 By contrast, Section 29 of the Central Bank Act grants no similar discretion, being cast in a quite different and peremptory tenor, thus: SEC. 29. ... The restraining order or injunction shall be refused or if granted, shall be dissolved upon filing by the Central Bank of a bond, which shall be in the form of cash or Central Bank cashier's check, in an amount twice the amount of the bond of the petitioner or plaintiff conditioned that it will pay the damages which the petitioner or plaintiff may suffer by the refusal or the dissolution of the injunction. ... . It is axiomatic that the word "shall" imports a mandatory sense as distinguished from the discretion that is allowed by use of the word "may." 2 Although this is not an absolute rule, the exception does not apply in the case at bar in view of the urgency of the measure contemplated in Section 29 and the adverse consequences that are sure to follow if the injunction is not lifted and the bank is allowed to reopen. After its earlier closure had been announced to the public, its depositors will be frantically pounding at its doors to recover their money. A bank run is inevitable. The old management will be reinstated to pursue the policies that made the bank insolvent in the first place. The purpose of the receivership will be frustrated. It is clearly for the purpose of guarding against such eventualities that the law makes it obligatory upon the court to dissolve the injunction once the required counterbond is posted by the Central Bank, as was done in this case.

There is here no derogation of judicial power, considering the imperative reasons for the provision. Neither is due process violated for there are urgent situations, such as the one before us, where notice and hearing may be validly dispensed with. 3 It should also be stressed that at the time the above-cited provision was incorporated in the Central Bank Act in 1976, 4 the procedural rules promulgated by the Supreme Court could be repealed, altered or supplemented by the Congress under Article X, Section 5(5), of the 1973 Constitution. 19. SOCORRO V. AQUINO The present case raises the question of whether Aquino's claim for damages on account of the improvident issuance by the respondent appellate court of the writ of preliminary injunction should be dismissed on the ground that he has failed to show or prove bad faith and malice on the part of the respondent Socorro in obtaining the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction. In Pacis vs. The Commission on Elections,3 this Court made an extensive discussion of the principles applicable to the recovery of damages caused through the improvident issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. This Court said that "damages sustained as a result of a wrongfully obtained injunction may be recovered upon the injunction bond required to be filed with the court." The same provisions permitting the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction require the filing of a bond before the grant of the writ. "The statutory undertaking of the bond is that it shall answer for all damages which the party to be restrained may sustain by reason of the injunction if the court should finally decide that the plaintiff was not entitled thereto. Malice or lack of good faith is not an element of recovery on the bond. This must be so, because to require malice as a prerequisite would make the filing of the bond a useless formality." Continuing, this Court said that "the dissolution of the injunction, even if the injunction was obtained in good faith, amounts to a determination that the injunction was wrongfully obtained and a right of action on the injunction bond immediately accrues." Thus, for the purpose of recovery upon the injunction bond, "the dissolution of the injunction because of the failure of petitioner's main cause of action" provides the "actionable wrong" for the purpose of recovery upon the bond. This Court also stressed, in the same case, that "there is nothing in the Rules of Court which allows recovery of damages other than upon the bond pledged by the party suing for an injunction. Section 9, Rule 58, limits recovery only upon the bond, and it specifically states that ... 'the amount of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff, or to the defendant, as the case may be, upon the bond of the other party, shall be claimed, ascertained, and awarded under the same procedure as prescribed in Section 20 of Rule 57.' " Under this provision, the party restrained, if he can recover anything, can recover only by reason of and upon the bond the only security and protection conceded to him by the rules. Consequently, the rule limits the amount of recovery in a suit on an injunction bond to the sum thus fixed, the amount measuring the extent of the assumed liability. This Court also finds it necessary to restate the rule in Molina vs. Somes4 that "an action for damages for the improper suing out of an injunction must be maintained upon the same principles which govern an action for the wrongful bringing of an action." This rule, however, applies only when the party restrained pursues his claim for damages not upon the injunction bond. In such a case where the party restrained sues not on the injunction bond, the rules accord him no relief by way of a claim for damages unless he can establish that the party applicant secured the issuance of the writ maliciously and without probable cause. This Court stated that "... when the process has been sued out maliciously there may be a right of action in favor of the defendant. But this right depends upon the law governing malicious prosecutions, and has no relation to the claim for damages urged by the defendant in this case. ..." 5 Additionally, this Court, citing Palmer vs. Foley (71 N.Y. 106, 108), said:. It seems that, without some security given before the granting of an injunction order, or without some order of the court or a judge, requiring some act on the part of the plaintiff, which is equivalent to the giving of security such as a deposit of money in court the defendant has no remedy for any damages which he may sustain from the issuing of the injunction, unless the conduct of the plaintiff has been such as to give ground for an action for malicious prosecution. In the case at bar, the record reveals that the petitioner Aquino, in the proceedings before the respondent appellate court filed a counterbond in the amount of P2,000 and opposed the injunction bond filed by the respondent Socorro on the ground of its insufficiency. In effect, those brought about the immediate dissolution of the writ of preliminary injunction. Thus Aquino pursues his claim for damages in the amount of P199,000 no longer upon the injunction bond in the amount

of P1,000 filed by Socorro with the respondent appellate court. This being the case, applicable here is the holding in Molina vs. Somes, supra, that an application for damages on account of the improvident issuance of a preliminary injunction writ must be governed by the same principles applicable to an action for the wrongful bringing of action. Before the respondent's liability can attach, it must appear that he filed his petition for certiorari re the main action and obtained the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction maliciously and without probable cause. These two essential requisites, malicious prosecution and lack of probable cause, are neither alleged nor proved in this case before us. Nothing in the record tends to establish the liability of the respondent Socorro. 20. AQUINO V. LONTOK On the charge of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, although it is well-settled in our jurisdiction that, unless otherwise provided by law or required by public interest, before bringing an action in or resorting to the courts of justice all remedies of administrative character affecting or determinative of the controversy at that level should first be exhausted by the aggrieved party, 17 this doctrine is not a hard and fast rule. In the present case, we are inclined to subscribe to private respondent's invocation of the urgency of judicial intervention, as one of the admitted exceptions to the rule, 18 which likewise would be in keeping with the court's broad discretion in granting injunctions. Whatever circumstances warranted the grant of injunction in the court below would be no different than the circumstances which created the urgency, and there can ordinarily be no better judge to determine the existence thereof than the trial court itself. Thus, it has been said that the court which is to exercise the discretion of granting an injunction is the court of original jurisdiction and not the appellate court; 19 and a preliminary injunction will usually be granted when it is made to appear that there is a substantial controversy between the parties and one of them is committing an act or threatening the immediate commission of an act that will cause irreparable injury or destroy the status quo of the controversy before a full hearing can be had on the merits of the case. The only limitations to such discretion would be that it must have been exercised upon the grounds and in the manner provided by law, 20 an inquiry into which is precisely part of the subject of our immediately succeeding discussion on the matter of the status of the injunction in controversy. Contrary to petitioners' position, we are disposed to sustain the validity of the writ of preliminary injunction in question. A temporary restraining order, while being in effect a species of injunction, is in some respects to be distinguished therefrom. It is an interlocutory order or writ issued by the court as a restraint on the defendant until the propriety of granting a preliminary injunction can be determined, thus going no further in its operation than to preserve the status quo until that determination. When such determination is made, the whole force of the order ceases by its own limitations and become functus officio, having by then served its purpose. 21 On this basis lies the mootness of the issue on the propriety of the issuance of successive restraining orders upon the approval of the application for a writ of preliminary injunction, as ruled by the Court of Appeals. With the grant of the writ, hearing the petition which sought the annulment of the three antecedent TROs would be inutile as the writ has been substituted for and subserves the purpose of the prior restraining orders. It is worth noting, nonetheless, that Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, as amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 224 effective April 16, 1982, sets a specific period for the juridical life span of a TRO, thus: No preliminary injunction shall be granted without notice to the defendant. If it shall appear from the facts shown by affidavits or by the verified complaint that great or irreparable injury would result to the applicant before the matter can be heard on notice, the judge to whom the application for preliminary injunction was made, may issue a restraining order to be effective only for a period of twenty days from date of its issuance. Within said twenty-day period, the judge must cause an order to be served on the defendant, requiring him to show cause, at a specified time and place, why the injunction should not be granted, and determine within the same period whether or not the preliminary injunction shall be granted, and shall accordingly issue the corresponding order. In the event that the application for preliminary injunction is denied, the restraining order is deemed automatically vacated. . . . The 20-day period of effectivity of a TRO is non-extendible; the restraining order automatically terminates at the end of such period without the need of any judicial declaration to that effect. 22 Any extension would, therefore, ordinarily, be disallowed. But, when injunction is subsequently granted, as in the case at bar, any defect in the order brought about by the extension of its enforceability is deemed cured. 23

The status or validity of the writ of preliminary injunction itself, however, remains in question. From a reading of the above-cited provision, it may appear that the order granting the injunction must issue within the same 20-day period. Be that as it may, we are constrained to enunciate, since the contrary is not expressed or otherwise indicated therein, that the mandatory tenor of the aforecited provision should not be taken to mean that a writ issued beyond the time frame is an absolute nullity, provided that, aside from the existence of any of the grounds for its issuance the determination of which is largely addressed to the trial court, the other requirements prescribed by the rules are present, namely, healing and posting of a bond. Instead, the obligatory import of the rule should be considered as a directive for the judge to act with corresponding dispatch on the application for preliminary injunction within the 20-day period if a TRO has been issued, with a proscription against an ex parteproceeding on such application since it would deprive the affected parties of the opportunity to be heard. Indeed, a look at the history of the provision would reveal that Batas Pambansa Blg. 224 was adopted precisely as a reaction against the indiscriminate issuance of writs of preliminary injunction which, not infrequently, converted the writ from an instrument in furtherance of justice to a shield for injustice. 24 This was made possible not only by unscrupulous lawyers and adventurous litigants but also by idle and corrupt judges who tolerated the improvident and ex parte issuance thereof and, in the case of TRO's apparently oblivious of or insensitive to the fact that these were not conditioned on the posting of bonds to indemnify the parties against whom they were issued. In the instant case, we note that the protection of such bond has been required. Also, it is of record that herein petitioners and private respondent were given an opportunity to be heard and, in fact, a hearing was conducted by the trial court before the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction to determine the existence of a valid ground therefor. 21. REPUBLIC V. JUDGE RAMON S. CAGUIOA

There is no vested right in a tax exemption; mere privilege that can be revoked anytime

We held that respondent judge gravely abused his discretion in ordering the issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction. For a writ of preliminary injunction to issue, the applicant must establish that (1) there is a clear and unmistakable right to be protected; (2) the invasion of the right sought to be protected is material and substantial; and (3) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. We ruled that petitioners failed to show a clear legal right that ought to be protected by the court. The rights granted under the Certificates of Registration and Tax Exemption of petitioners are not absolute and unconditional as to constitute rights in esse. These certificates granting petitioners a permit to operate their respective businesses are in the nature of licenses, which can be revoked at any time. There is no vested right in a tax exemption, more so when the latest expression of legislative intent renders its continuance doubtful. Being a mere statutory privilege, a tax exemption may be modified or withdrawn at will by the granting authority. Further, the feared injurious effects of the imposition of duties, charges and taxes on imported tobacco and alcohol products on petitioners businesses cannot possibly outweigh the dire consequences that the non -collection of taxes would wreak on the government. With regard to the injunction bond, we also found respondent judge to have overstepped his discretion when he arbitrarily fixed the injunction bond of petitioners at only P1 million. Considering the number of petitioner enterprises and the volume of their businesses, the injunction bond is undoubtedly not sufficient to answer for the damages that the government was bound to suffer as a consequence of the suspension of the implementation of the assailed provisions of R.A. No. 9334. Section 4(b), Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, provides that a bond is executed in favor of the party enjoined to answer for all damages that it may sustain by reason of the injunction. In A.M. No. RTJ-07-2063, respondent judge issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, enjoining the collection of taxes. Taxes are the lifeblood of the government, and it is of public interest that the collection of which should not be restrained.[9] Further, the applicants for the Writ showed no clear and unmistakable right that was material and substantial as would warrant the issuance of the Writ. Neither were the applicants able to demonstrate the urgency and necessity of the Writ. The burden that the applicants businesses would sustain beca use of the imposition of the sin tax on their tobacco and alcohol products cannot possibly be greater than the heavy government revenue losses that would result from the non-collection of taxes. In addition, the improper issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction was aggravated by the inadequate injunctive bond. As Justice Dicdican pointed out, respondent judge approved the one million-peso bond for the 13 original petitioners and 5 intervenors. The purpose of an injunctive bond is to protect the opposing party (the government, in the instant case) against loss or damage by reason of the injunction in case the court finally decides that the applicants (importers/traders inside the Subic Bay Freeport Zone) are not entitled to it.

No vested right to public office

In A.M. No. RTJ-07-2064, respondent judge again issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction that did not satisfy the legal requisites for its issuance, and which was enforced outside his territorial jurisdiction. The applicant, in this case, questions his reassignment as District Collector of the Port of Subic to the Port of Cagayan de Oro. We uphold the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the applicant failed to establish that he has a clear and unmistakable right that was violated so as to warrant the issuance of a preliminary injunction. He could not claim a vested right to his position in the Port of Subic. A public office is not a private property. Further, the Writ of Preliminary Injunction was issued to enjoin acts performed outside the territorial jurisdiction of respondent judge. It was directed against government officials whose offices in Manila are outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City. Respondent judge argues that the instant case is an exception to the general rule that a trial court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin acts being performed or about to be performed outside its territorial jurisdiction. He cites Gayacao v. Executive Secretary,[12] where we held that the theory of non -jurisdiction is inapplicable. InGayacao, a petition for mandamus was filed in the City of Basilan against the Executive Secretary, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, and the Director of Lands, all of whom hold office in Manila. The petition questioned the validity of administrative orders and decisions issued by respondents. In ruling against respondents, we held that, where the sole point in issue is whether the decision of respondent public officers was legally correct or not, we see no cogent reason why this power of judicial review should be confined to the courts of first instance of the locality where the offices of respondents are maintained, to the exclusion of the courts of first instance in those localities where the plaintiffs reside, and where the questioned decisions are being enforced. Respondent judge cited Gayacao to support his issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction against government officers holding office in Manila which was outside his territorial jurisdiction, to enjoin them from implementing CPO No. B-309-2006 inside the Subic Bay Freeport Zone, which is within the jurisdiction of respondent judges court. However, Gayacao is not applicable to his case. Gayacao applies only when the sole issue before the court is whether the decision of respondent public officer was legally correct or not. In A.M. No. RTJ-07-2064, the applicant for the Writ was not merely inquiring into the legality of CPO No. B-309-2006, but was also seeking to enjoin its enforcement outside the jurisdiction of Branch 74 of the RTC in Olongapo City. In the petition for mandamus in Gayacao, the prayer of petitioner that the land authorities be ordered to reinstate her original application is purely corollary to the main relief sought for a reversal of the questioned administrative decision would necessarily lead to the same result. The requisites for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction are basic and elementary, and should have been known by respondent judge. More importantly, as the Investigating Justice points out, respondent judge should have been more cautious in issuing writs of preliminary injunction. These writs are strong arms of equity which must be issued with great deliberation. The Affidavit of Solicitor Larangan, which enumerates cases wherein respondent judge issued injunctive writs which were subsequently nullified by a higher court, shows his propensity for issuing improvident writs of injunction. Further, the rules on jurisdiction and venue are also basic, and judges should know them by heart. All told, in A.M. Nos. RTJ-07-2063 and RTJ-07-2064, we find respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. However, on the charge of manifest partiality, we reiterate our ruling in G.R. No. 168584 that evidence of respondent judges alleged partial ity was insufficient. Ignorance of the law is the mainspring of injustice. Judges are called upon to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules. Basic rules should be at the palm of their hands. Their inexcusable failure to observe basic laws and rules will render them administratively liable. Where the law involved is simple and elementary, lack of conversance with it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. Verily, for transgressing the elementary jurisdictional limits of his court, respondent should be administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law. 22. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL BANK, ET. AL. V. CA In this case, the RTC of Makati had assumed jurisdiction over the foreclosure of the mortgaged real properties and chattels including all incidents related to the conduct and actuations of the sheriffs thereof. 70 The February 23, 1993 Order of the RTC of Makati lifting the writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued by it and allowing the sale at public auction of the personal properties by the petitioners sheriffs after petitioner PCIB had posted the requisite bond was an interlocutory order; hence, always under the control of the said court; the order may be modified and rescinded by it upon sufficient grounds shown at any time before judgment. The trial court had the inherent power to control its processes and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice. 71 Thus, it behooved the private respondents to file their motion with the RTC of Makati for the reconsideration of its February 23, 1993 Order or file a supplemental complaint in Civil Case No. 91-2495 instead of filing two separate complaints one after another, docketed as Civil Case

Nos. 93-65135 and 93-65757, with two different branches of the court, praying for injunctive relief to enjoin the sale at public auction of the mortgage chattels as decreed by the RTC of Makati per its February 23, 1993 Order, otherwise the private respondents may correctly be declared as indulging in forum shopping. 72 After all, the ex-officio sheriff of Valenzuela was one of the respondents before the RTC of Makati over whom and over whose actuations the said court had supervision and control. Even if the said sheriff failed to comply with Act 1508 in setting the sale at public auction of the mortgaged chattels, the RTC of Makati had jurisdiction to order the said sheriff to comply with the law. 73 The private respondents even brazenly violated the principle of judicial stability, which essentially states that the judgment or order of a court of competent jurisdiction may not be interfered with by any court of concurrent jurisdiction for the simple reason that the power to open, modify or vacate the said judgment or order is not only possessed but is restricted to the court in which the judgment or order is rendered or issued. Accordingly, no court has the power to interfere by injunction with the judgment or decrees of a court of concurrent jurisdiction having the power to grant relief sought by injunction. The various branches of the RTC having as they have the same or equal authority and exercising as they do concurrent and coordinate jurisdiction should not, cannot and are not permitted to intervene with their respective cases, much less with their orders or judgments. A contrary rule would lead to confusion, and seriously hamper the administration of justice.