You are on page 1of 2

Yu vs.

Orchard Golf and Country Club FACTS: The events leading to these consolidated cases began with a game of golf. Yu and Yuhico were set to play golf at the Orchard Golf and Country Club with one more member of the club. Unfortunately, this other member cancelled at the last minute. Because of the Club s policy, which prohibited !twosomes" from teeing off on wee#ends and public holidays before $pm, petitioners re%uested management to loo# for another player to &oin them. 'hen a third player could not be found, petitioners re%uested that they be allowed to play. The Club refused, but they played anyway, in violation of the Club s rules. (s a result, an incident report was filed with the Club s Board of )irectors. The Board resolved to suspend both members for * months. +etitioners filed complaints with the ,ecurities -nvestigation and Clearing )epartment of the ,ecurities and ./change Commission, at that time the tribunal vested by law with &urisdiction to hear and decide intra0corporate controversies. The ,-C)0,.C issued a T1O effective for 23 days, restraining the Club from implementing the suspension. 2 days before the T1O would lapse, however, the ,.C issued guidelines wherein parties would be allowed to file their cases before (ugust 4, 2333 but any provisional remedies the ,.C granted them were to be effective only until that date. On (ugust 5, 2333, the ,-)C0,.C issued a writ of preliminary in&unction en&oining respondents from implementing the suspensions. Two months later, the Board resolved it was going to implement the suspension as the (ugust 4 cut0off had already lapsed. +etitioners filed a petition for indirect contempt with the 1TC of )asmari6as, Cavite. The 1TC restored the writ of preliminary in&unction. 1espondents appealed with the C(, which reversed the 1TC s decision and the petitioner s suspension was finally implemented. 7eanwhile petitioners filed a motion ad cautelam$ in the 1TC of -mus, Cavite, praying for the issuance of a T1O and8or writ of in&unction to en&oin respondents from implementing the suspension orders. The 1TC issued the T1O. -t was after this issuance that the petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration with the C(. The C( denied the motion and thus the first case was elevated to the ,upreme Court. The respondents %uestioned the order of the -mus 1TC with a motion for reconsideration, which the 1TC denied. The respondents turned to the C(, which issued a T1O that en&oined the 1TC from implementing the writ of preliminary in&unction. The petitioners then filed the second case with the ,upreme Court, %uestioning the C( s T1O. ISSUES: $. )id the ,.C guidelines shorten the life span of the writs of preliminary in&unction issued by the ,.C9 ,-C), thereby ma#ing them effective only until (ugust 4, 2333: 2. )id the C( commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac# of &urisdiction by issuing a T1O against the -mus, Cavite 1TC and en&oining the implementation of its writ of preliminary in&unction against respondents: HEL : $. Y.,. +etitioners contend that the guidelines could not have possibly limited the effectivity of their writs for two reasons; <$= the intention of the guidelines was to cover applications for such writs and provisional remedies made on or after (ugust $, 2333 and <2= in any event, the guidelines were void for lac# of publication. The petitioners contentions have no merit. The guidelines were clear and categorical, such that there simply was no need for petitioners e/tended interpretation. Under the guidelines, the parties were allowed to file their cases before (ugust 4, 2333 but any provisional remedies the ,.C granted them were to be effective only until that date. On the 2 nd contention, the court ruled that interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the public need not be published. The guidelines were clear that they were meant for the information of the officers of the ,.C only. >o doubt, the guidelines were meant to serve as an advisory to all ,.C officers to refrain from accepting new cases because of the impending transfer of &urisdiction to the regular courts. The issuance or recall of a preliminary writ of in&unction is an interlocutory matter that remains at all times within the control of the court or %uasi0&udicial body that issued it. Thus, petitioners could not rightfully claim a vested right to an in&unctive writ.
1

(s a precautionary measure to protect the party s remedies, http;88famli.blogspot.com823$$8$28ad0cautelam0court0&urisdiction.html <- have no idea if this source is reliable, use at own ris#=

2.

!The T1O issued by the C( on 7arch 2?, 2332 has long lapsed, its lifetime under 1ule @4 of the 1ules of Court being only ?3 days. 1espondents themselves admit that the C( allowed its T1O to lapse. Because there is nothing that will now stop the -mus, Cavite 1TC from implementing its writ of preliminary in&unction against respondents, there is no need for us to issue any order en&oining respondents from implementing petitioners suspension. This petition, as a result, has become moot and academic."