You are on page 1of 42

[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 1

PRELIMINARY INJUCTION In addition, the other incorporators were shown to have also sold shares to the
respondents, who now had 3,300 shares and held the majority of the outstanding
1. RIVERA v. FLORENDO shares of the corporation. The stock certificates given to the respondents bore the
GR No. L-57587 signatures of the president and the secretary of the corporation, as required by the
October 8, 1986 Corp Law. Rivera admitted the genuineness of the signatures.

Recit ready versin: Fujiyama is a corporation, with Rivera as a majority Respondents however attempted several times to register to register their stock
stockholder. Akasako, who claimed to own Riveras shares, sold to private certificates with the corporation, but to no avail. They filed a case for preliminary
respondents (Jureidni and Tsuchiya) some of the shares of Rivera, but when the injunction and/or receivership. A hearing was held and Judge Florendo
latter tried to register their stock certificates with the Fujiyama Corporation, they (respondent also) issued an order for a writ of preliminary injunction, authorizing
were denied. They filed a case for preliminary injunction/receivership, and the Tsuchiya and Jureidini to manage Fujiyamas hotel and restaurant.
court issued an order granting the private respondents the authority to manage the
corporations hotel and restaurant. Basically the main issue is whether or not what [In case he asks: Petitioners counsel withdrew from the case and a bunch of
was issued by the court was a mandatory injunction or an order for provisional motions were filed]
receivership. The SC clarified that it was for provisional receivership. The Rules of
Court provides that the issuance of an order for mandatory injunction is justified Issue/Held: [relevant to class] W/N the order issued is that of preliminary
only when the case is clear and free from doubt and dispute. Because the there were mandatory injunction or provisional receivership? Provisional receivership
many issues surrounding the shares subject of the alleged sale (such issues include
ownership and authority to sell Riveras shares, as Akasako was allegedly a dummy), Ratio
then the writ for mandatory injunction should not have been ordered in the first A. So what is a mandatory injunction?
place. Also, pursuant to the principle that no advantage may be given to one to the 1. It is granted when there is a showing
prejudice of the other, the writ violated Riveras rights as a majority stockholder. a. That the invasion of the right is material and substantial
b. The right of the complainant is clear and unmistakable
Petitioners: Aquilino Rivera; Isamu Akasako; Fujiyama Hotel & Restaurant Inc. c. There is an urgent and permanent necessity for the writ to prevent
[Fujiyama] serious damage
Respondents: Hon. Alfredo Florendo (Manila CFI); Lourdes Jureidini; Milagros 2. A mandatory injunction commands the performance of a specific act.
Tsuchiya a. As opposed to a prohibitive injunction, which is intended to
maintain status quo
Facts 3. The issuance of mandatory injunction should be justified only in clear
Fujiyama is a corporation duly registered and organized under Philippine law. cases
Petitioner Rivera is an incorporator, with a total of 4,899 shares (P100 par value). a. It is generally improper to issue it before final hearing, because it
Thereafter, a certain Isamu Akasako, a Japanese national, and allegedly the real tends to do more than just the status quo
owner of the shares owned by Rivera, sold 2,550 shares to respondents Jureidini b. It should be issued only when there is willful and unlawful
and Tsuchiya. After the sale was consummated and consideration was paid to invasion of plaintiffs right
Akasako, Rivera refused to make indorsement [for stock transfer certificate c. The plaintiffs case is one free from doubt and dispute
purposes] unless he was also paid. B. Florendo violated the fundamental rule of injunctions, that a mandatory
injunction will not issue in favor of a party whose rights are not clear or free
of doubt, or as yet undetermined.

AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 2

1. The shares were purchased not from the registered owner (Rivera) but c. And she said that the writ was not addressed to her, nor her
from a dummy of Rivera (Akasako) counsel, but to the lower court (and thus she had nothing to
a. In other words: who owned the shares? Or who had the acknowledge)
authority to sell the shares? Was it Rivera? Was it Akasako? 2. Resistance or disobedience to a lawful writ constitutes indirect
No one knowsand thats exactly why the case was not free contempt punishable under Rule 71.
from doubt. a. It constitutes defiance of authority, justice or dignity of the
2. Such contentious issues should be properly tried out at a trial on the court
merits b. Such conduct tends to bring the authority into disrespect
a. The order granting the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction c. It MUST, however, be exercised on the preservative and not
was analogous to a judgment on the merits on a vindictive principle
b. The trial court should have first determined what Tsuchiya and 3. Juneidini was not in contempt.
Juneidini actually sought, the registration of their shareholdings a. The evidence presented by petitioners were very one-sided
and the issuance of new stock certificates b. Although Jureidini did not immediately comply with the Writ,
c. It is only after the trial that the subsequent act of management it appears reasonable on her part to request that she be
may be ordered, giving the respondents the right to allowed to confer with her lawyer first before she makes any
appeal/review, and need not be immediately executor move of her own.
C. Florendo also violated the rule that no advantage may be given to one to the c. It is likewise reasonable for her counsel to request that he be
prejudice of the other given time to file a motion for clarification with the Supreme
1. He violated that rule by using the order of injunction to transfer the Court.
property in litigation from the possession of one party, to another
whose legal title is in dispute
2. The primary purpose of an injunction is to preserve the status quo (or 2. FERANIL VS. ARCILLA
the last actual peaceable uncontested status which preceded the GR No L-44353 | Feb 28, 1979 |De Castro
controversy).
a. Here, Rivera is the registered majority and controlling stockholder Petitioners: Martha Feranil and Primitivo Villegas
before the sales happened Respondents: Hon. Gumersindo Arcilla, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Branch
III, City Court of Davao City and Spouses Alfonso Cardenas and Lolita Cardenas
b. The issuance of the writ in question deprived him of his rights as
Summary: Feranli and Villegas filed against Spouses Cardenas an ejectment case
stockholder, and his position as corporate president with prayer for the issuance of preliminary mandatory injunction, which was
D. [Non-important non-provrem issue] Juneidini was charged with contempt. granted by the Court. The Spouses filed an answer (with a motion to dissolve the
1. Apparently, Juneidini refused to acknowledge the writ, by saying the writ) alleging that in the Complaint, it does not state that Villegas has a cause of
following statement: "I will not obey thatYes, I am higher than the action against them since he is not in actual and/or physical possession of the land.
Supreme CourtI will obey only what my lawyer tells me." The City Court ordered Villegas to be dropped from the complaint as plaintiff and
the writ was dissolved since Villegas is the sole signatory of the requisite bond. The
a. It was alleged that she said this in a restaurant, and that she was
Court ordered Feranil or Villegas to remove whatever improvements they introduce
fazed with the unusual display of lawyers that were in the on the premises in question after the issuance of said writ within 10 days from
restaurant at that time receipt. I: W/N dropping Villegas from the complaint is proper NO. R: Three days
b. Naturally, she denied saying that statement before the dissolution, Feranil and Villegas entered into a contract of lease for the
construction of a fruit stand. Since the Spouses refused to vacate the premises, by
virtue of the lease contract, Villegas has a cause of action and is entitled to the

AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 3

possession of the lot upon which to construct a fruit stand. I: W/N the dissolution of Feranil only), Ordering either Feranil or Villegas to remove whatever
the Writ of Preliminary Injunction for lack of the requisite bond despite existence improvements that they introduce on the premises in question after the
thereof is proper NO. R: With Villegas reinstated as a proper party with sufficient issuance of said writ within 10 days from receipt.
cause of action, the bond signed by him as principal is perfectly valid and effective to In another order issued by the City Court, the writ of preliminary injunction
support the Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, which accordingly, should be was dissolved "for lack of the requisite bond required of Feranil without
restored with full force and effect. I: W/N Martha Feranil or Villegas should remove prejudice on her part to pursuing appropriate legal remedies under the
whatever improvements introduced in the premises after the issuance of the writ Rules of Court.
but before trial on the main action NO R: The effect of the preliminary mandatory CFI: Affirmed the orders of the City Court.
injunction is to restore the plaintiffs to the possession of the lot in question after the
defendants have allegedly forcibly entered it. The possession once restored, entitles Issues/Held:
them to the full enjoyment thereof, in the same manner and to same extent as they 1. W/N dropping Villegas from the complaint is proper NO.
had before the possession had been disturbed by the defendants. Thus, they are free 2. W/N the dissolution of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction for lack of the
to exercise rights of ownership and possession. requisite bond despite existence thereof is proper NO.
3. W/N Martha Feranil or Villegas should remove whatever improvements
Facts: introduced in the premises after the issuance of the writ but before trial on
This is a petition for review on certiorari treated as SCA, filed by Martha the main action NO.
Feranil and Primitivo Villegas who were the plaintiffs in an ejectment case
with prayer for the issuance of preliminary mandatory injunction, which Villegas is a lessee
was granted. The complaint also alleges that on Sep 20, 1975, 3 days before the act of
In their answer to the complaint in the ejectment case, Spouses Alfonso and dispossession imputed to the defendants, Feranil and Villegas entered into
Lolita Cardenas, alleged as one of their affirmative defenses the following: a contract of lease for the construction of a fruit stand, and that since Sep
(incorporated in the Answer is a Motion to Dissolve the Writ of Preliminary 23, 1975, defendants have remained and continue to remain, in the illegal
Injunction issued.) possession of the premises. These allegations, together with that of par 13,
o That the complaint states no cause of action in that: The plaintiffs of the Complaint "that the continuance of the defendants in unlawfully and
have admitted in par. 5 of the Complaint that "Martha Feranil is the forcibly entering the aforementioned property", and that "their unlawful
prior and legal possessor" rental be increased instead of original acts of the defendants have unjustly prejudiced the plaintiffs over the
agreement of P50, should be P80 to which defendants agreed. reasonable expected earning of the premises ... make out also a case of
o In synthesis, these allegations are admissions of plaintiffs that unlawful detainer, which is the proper cause of action of Primitive Villegas,
defendants have juridical title to the possession of the land in who, by virtue of the lease contract, is entitled to the possession of the lot
dispute as lessees and are not therefore illegally possessing the upon which to construct a fruit stand.
same; The allegation in the complaint "that the plaintiffs informed the defendants
o Insofar as Villegas is suing as party-plaintiff, there is no allegation that what they are occupying is the premises covered by a contract and had
in the Complaint that he was in the actual and/or physical advised them to vacate from the premises, but the defendants refused and
possession of the land which was disturbed by defendants; ignored, xxx" fulfills also the requirement of demand to vacate from both
therefore, he has not shown any interest in the nature of the action Feranil and Villegas.
for forcible entry:
o That Villegas has no capacity to sue as attorney-in-fact of Feranil Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction - Reinstated
there being no factual allegations in the complaint that he is suing The dissolution of the said writ on the ground that after Villegas, who alone
as such and that he has been specifically authorized to institute is a signatory of the requisite bond has been dropped, the bond has lost its
and prosecute the present action; legal efficacy, is without factual or legal basis. With Villegas reinstated as a
The City Court: Villegas is ordered dropped from the complaint in his proper party with sufficient cause of action, the bond signed by him as
capacity as co-plaintiff, Denied defendants' motion to dismiss Feranil's principal is perfectly valid and effective to support the Preliminary
motion, Modified the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction (granted to Mandatory Injunction, which accordingly, should be restored with full force

AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 4

and effect. THE COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, and THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
TARIFF COMMISSION
Feranil Free to exercise rights of ownership and possession
The effect of the preliminary mandatory injunction is to restore the Summary: Petitioners are manufacturers of various steel products such as
plaintiffs to the possession of the lot in question after the defendants have reinforcing bars, steel sections, and profiles. RA 8800 was enacted and the
allegedly forcibly entered it. The possession once restored, entitles them to petitioners are assailing its constitutionality. The RTC of Valenzuela found a strong
the full enjoyment thereof, in the same manner and to same extent as they case against the constitutionality of the said law sufficient to justify a preliminary
had before the possession had been disturbed by the defendants. The injunctive relief. The CA reversed such order. Our issue in this case is whether or not
acknowledged legal effect of an injunction, which naturally varies, depends the preliminary injunction issued by the trial court be upheld? We have ruled that
on whether the injunction is prohibitory or mandatory. when the petitioner assailing a statute has made out a case of unconstitutionality strong
o Mandatory injunction: the party in whose favor it is issued is enough to overcome, in the mind of the judge, the presumption of validity, in addition to
placed in the same situation he was before the commission of the a showing of a clear legal right to the remedy sought, the court should issue a writ of
illegal act complained of, as if said act has never been committed. preliminary injunction. Only two requisites are necessary for a preliminary injunction
o Prohibitory injunction: the specific act sought to be enjoined has to issue: (1) the existence of a right to be protected and (2) the facts, against which
not yet been performed, and is one alleged to be illegal, by the the injunction is to be directed violate said right. In this case, petitioners have
pleader. It is enjoined because it would cause irreparable injury if demonstrated a clear right threatened by the questioned safeguard measures
allowed to be committed to the prejudice of the party asking for
the issuance of the injunction. The situation before the issuance of Facts:
the prohibitory injunction is thus preserved in status quo. In the Petitioners are manufacturers of various steel products such as reinforcing
present case, the status quo is Feranil being in actual possession of bars, steel sections, and profiles. The principal raw materials for these
her own lot, is free to exercise rights of ownership and possession. products are steel billets, which come in various chemical and physical
compositions, sourced partly from domestic producers and partly from
WHEREFORE, the order of the respondent court dated March 31, 1976, dismissing overseas suppliers.
the petition for certiorari of the herein petitioner is hereby reversed. Accordingly, it The domestic suppliers supply only about 15% of the countrys total
is hereby ordered: (1) that Primitive Villegas be as he is hereby reinstated as requirements. These are made from various scraps containing impurities.
plaintiff in the complaint filed in Civil Case No. 2727-C of the City Court of Davao They are of inferior quality compared to the imported ones made from
(Branch II); (2) that preliminary mandatory injunction dissolved by the City Court virgin-ore materials. Thus, petitioners are compelled to import a bulk of
be as it is hereby restored in full force and effect; and (3) the order for the removal their raw materials from foreign suppliers.
of whatever improvements have been introduced in the premises after the issuance Republic Act No. 8800 was enacted codifying the provisions of Article XIX of
of the mandatory injunction be, as it is hereby declared without effect. No special the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the World Trade
pronouncements as to costs. Organization (WTO) Agreement on Safeguards.
o These agreements authorize the application of a safeguard
3. FILIPINO METALS vs. SECRETARY of DTI measure if a product is being imported into the country in such
G.R. No. 157498, July 15, 2005 quantities as would cause or threaten to cause serious injury to
domestic producers of like or directly competitive products.
Petitioners: FILIPINO METALS CORPORATION, MAXIMA STEEL MILLS CORPORATION, BUILDERS Petitioners filed with the RTC of Valenzuela City, a petition for declaratory
STEEL CORPORATION, UNICORN METAL CORPORATION, VENUS STEEL relief and/or certiorari and prohibition seeking to declare Rep. Act No.
CORPORATION, LEGACY STEEL CORPORATION, PAG-ASA STEEL CORPORATION, 8800 as unconstitutional.
MARTIAN STEEL CORPORATION, LUNAR STEEL CORPORATION, CEBU STEEL The RTC judge, while holding in abeyance a ruling on the validity of Rep. Act
CORPORATION, CAPITOL STEEL CORPORATION, STEEL ASIA MANUFACTURING No. 8800, found a strong case against the constitutionality of the said law
CORPORATION,and GRAND ASIA CORPORATION sufficient to justify a preliminary injunctive relief.
Respondents: SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, SECRETARY OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,

AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 5

Not satisfied, respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of measures would not necessarily drain the national coffer. Note that
Appeals. In its assailed decision, the appellate court concluded that the RTC safeguard measures are not always in the form of a tariff increase.
judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of injunction. Safeguard measures may, and in fact, usually take the form of a
simple quantitative restriction on imports.
Issue: Clearly, safeguard measures are not in the nature of taxes, in the sense of
1. WHETHER OR NOT THE CA COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT being the lifeblood of the national economy, such that their enforcement
REVERSED AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE RTC VALENZUELA, cannot per se be enjoined. Having settled this preliminary matter, we now
DISSOLVING THE WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ENJOINING PUBLIC look at the merits of the instant petition.
RESPONDENTS FROM IMPLEMENTING R.A. 8800. Simply put, should the Under Rule 58, Section 3 of the Revised Rules of Court, any of the following
preliminary injunction issued by the trial court be upheld? YES grounds justifies the issuance of a preliminary injunction:
2. WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONERS HAVE ADEQUATELY SHOWN A CLEAR o That the plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole
RIGHT TO INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. YES or part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or
continuance of the acts complained of, or in the performance of an
Ratio: act or acts, either for a limited period or perpetually;
Petitioners maintain that Rep. Act No. 8800 violates Article VI, Section 28 o That the commission or continuance of some act complained of
(2) of the Constitution. during the litigation or the non-performance thereof would
o They contend that the said provision does not authorize Congress probably work injustice to the plaintiff; or
to delegate the power to impose tariff rates, import and export o That the defendant is doing, threatens, or is about to do, or is
quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues and other duties or imposts to procuring or suffering to be done, some act probably in violation of
persons other than the President. They further argue that RA 8800 the plaintiffs rights respecting the subject of the action, and
impairs Philippine treaty obligations under the WTO Agreement tending to render the judgment ineffectual.
on Safeguards. In the instant case, the act complained of is the enforcement of RA
Respondents insist that the CA correctly ruled that RA 8800 enjoys the 8800. Petitioners pointed out that RA 8800 delegated the power to fix
presumption of constitutionality. tariffs and imposts directly to the Secretary of the Department of Trade and
o Respondents claim it is improper for petitioners to raise the issue Industry. Moreover, they showed that RA 8800 impairs Philippine treaty
of the alleged violation of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards since obligations under the WTO Agreement on Safeguards.
it was not raised before the Court of Appeals. They also allege that We have ruled that when the petitioner assailing a statute has made out
the supposed injury to be sustained by petitioners is neither grave a case of unconstitutionality strong enough to overcome, in the mind of
nor irreparable. Finally, respondents deny that they engaged in the judge, the presumption of validity, in addition to a showing of a clear
forum-shopping. legal right to the remedy sought, the court should issue a writ of
We note that the issue of constitutionality of RA 8800 is not raised in the preliminary injunction.
instant petition. It is in fact pending litigation at the regional trial court. o After a careful consideration of the submission by the parties, we
Neither is the issue of forum-shopping allegedly committed by respondents, are convinced that petitioners herein have established a strong
determinative of the case at hand. case for the unconstitutionality of RA 8800sufficient for the grant
Rep. Act No. 8800, also known as the Safeguard Measures Act, authorize the of a preliminary injunction. Note, however, that a writ of
application of a safeguard measure upon a finding that a product is being preliminary injunction is issued merely to preserve the status quo
imported into the country in increased quantities as to be a substantial ante. Its sole objective is to preserve the status quo until the merits
cause of serious injury or threat to the domestic industry. of the case can be heard fully. It is generally availed of to prevent
o Hence, the primary purpose of safeguard measures is not at all to actual or threatened acts, until the merits of the case can be
generate revenue for the government, but to provide protection to disposed of.
domestic industry threatened by import surges. Thus, while Respondents argue that RA 8800 enjoys the presumption of validity and
suspending the collection of internal revenue taxes will definitely constitutionality until proven otherwise. True, but for the purpose of
cripple the government, enjoining the enforcement of safeguard issuing a provisional remedy, strictly speaking, this contention lacks

AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 6

relevance. Obviously, a law need not be declared unconstitutional first promises to Panay Municipal Cadastre, a corporation organized for the purpose of
before a preliminary injunction against its enforcement may be granted. effecting cadastral survey of lands in Kalibo. To secure such loan contract, the
Needless to stress, the moment a law is nullified for being unconstitutional, Azarragas executed a mortgage in favor of the De La Rama firm on the land which is
it ceases to exist. Thus, a writ of injunction would then become superfluous. subject of the dispute. As a result, the Soncuyas filed a civil action with Judge
Only two requisites are necessary for a preliminary injunction to Garduo. Guess what? Its primary purpose is to obtain a preliminary injunction to
issue: prevent the parties from carrying into effect the contract secured by the mortgage!
o (1) the existence of a right to be protected and So principal contract sya! The Judge granted it naman. The court said that such grant
o (2) the facts, against which the injunction is to be directed violate was an irregular act and beyond the jurisdiction of the Judge because preliminary
said right. injunction is a purely subsidiary remedy, not an independent action.
o While a clear showing of the right is necessary, its existence need
not be conclusively established. In fact, the evidence required to Street, J.:
justify the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction need not be Facts
conclusive or complete. The evidence need only give the court an Soncuya filed an original complaint in CFI Capiz (CivCase 2541) against six
idea of the justification for the preliminary injunction, pending the individuals: the Azarragas, to recover damages amounting to P125,000
decision of the case on the merits. Thus, to be entitled to the writ, from them due to the following:
petitioners are only required to show that they have an ostensible o Misfeasance in procuring a Torrens title to the property claimed
right to the final relief prayed for in their complaint. by Soncuya; and
In this case, petitioners have demonstrated a clear right threatened by the o For various acts of waste committed by them in connection with
questioned safeguard measures. Being in a business heavily dependent on the misappropriation of the property mentioned.
importation of steel, they would be severely damaged once safeguard The land consists of four parcels, constituting a portion of the larger of the
measures are applied against steel imports. Petitioners have shown, to the two lots described in the original certificate of title No. 9785. (So may two
satisfaction of the trial court and this Court that any increase in tariffs or lots yung 9785, isa malaki, isa maliit. Yung four parcels na yun is just a
quantitative restriction on imports will force them to close down their portion of the malaki. Nalito ako sa wording dito kaya inexplain ko na lol).
respective businesses and lay off their employees. In connection with such complaint, Soncuya asked for inscription of notice
This, to us, is sufficient to entitle petitioners to a preliminary of lis pendens on 9785, as well as a writ of attachment against two other
injunction. We thus hold that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing lands owned by the Azarragas (Certificate of Title No. 9804 and 10351
the trial court order granting the writ of preliminary injunction. remember this, kasama mga to sa imomortgage)
o Attachment was discharged upon the filing of the Azarragas of a
Held: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals Decision, dated 12.5k pesos bond. The notice of lis pendens was also cancelled.
February 28, 2003, in CA-G.R. SP No. 67397, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The BEFORE this incident, a corporation in Capiz called Panay Municipal
Order, dated September 4, 2001, of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City, Cadastre (PMC) was formed.
Branch 172, in Civil Case No. 82-V-01 is hereby REINSTATED. No pronouncement as o It has a purpose of effecting a cadastral survey of lands in the
to costs. municipality of Kalibo.
o The Azarragas had obligated themselves to supply money to this
4. PANAY MUNICIPAL CADASTRE vs. GARDUNO corporation for the purpose of the survey.
Petitioners: Panay Municipal Cadastre, et. al. However, things were going bad for Azarragas and found themselves
Respondents: Judge L. Garduo, CFI Capiz, and Josue Soncuya without funds to meet their obligation to PMC, hence, they applied for a
loan of P25,000 with the De La Rama firm.
Nature of the Case: Petition for Certiorari assailing Garduos orders o (Alert: Source of present controversy) De La Rama granted this, but
to secure the money, a mortgage was executed on the land covered
Summary: Simple case. There is a land dispute between Soncuya and the Azarragas by certificates of title Nos. 9785-9804, and 10351.
Soncuya claims for damages, etc. During the pendency of this dispute, the
Azarragas entered into a contract of loan with the De La Rama firm, to fulfill its

AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 7

After the mortgage, and while CivCase 2541 was pending trial, Soncuya action in which the preliminary injunction is sought and which right is
began a second civil action (CivCase 2643) in CFI Capiz against the intended to be conserved by the injunction .
Azarragas and the De La Rama firm. This rule is fundamental; and a contrary practice cannot be tolerated, since
o This is to obtain a preliminary injunction to prevent the Azarragas it would tend to a multiplicity of actions and lead to unnecessary expense
and the De la Rama firm from carrying into effect the contract in litigation.
secured by the mortgage mentioned. (Please read their prayer in Any conservative remedy to which the plaintiff might really have been
this footnote in case sir asks.)1 entitled could have been obtained by motion in the original action (No.
Judge Garduno issued an order for the preliminary injunction upon filing of 2541).
an undertaking by Soncuya of 2000 pesos. The next day, the preliminary
writ of injunction was issued enjoining the De La Rama firm from extending
the credit stipulated for in the mortgage and the Azarragas from receiving
any portion of the money intended to be advanced.
Despite MRs, the judge refused to dissolve the injunction, hence, this 5. BROCKA vs. ENRILE
petition. (Note: How did PMC get into this case? They filed a motion in
intervention but was denied) Petitioners: LINO BROCKA, BENJAMIN CERVANTES, COSME GARCIA, RODOLFO
SANTOS, VALENTINO SALIPSIP, RICARDO VEGA, ERIC MARIANO, JOSE EMMANUEL
Issue/Held: Whether or not Judge Garduo committed GADALEJ in issuing the writ OYALES, RONNIE MATTA, ALFREDO VIAJE, RUBEN EUGENIO, REYNALDO ORTIZ,
of preliminary injunction against the Azarragas and De La Rama firm YES. ORLANDO ORTIZ, NOEL REYES, EDUARDO IMPERIAL, NESTOR SARMIENTO,
FRANCO PALISOC, VIRGILIO DE GUZMAN, ALBERTO REYES, JESSIE PINILI, ROMULO
Ratio AUGUIS, DOMINADOR RESURRECION III, RONNIE LAYGO, ROSAURO ROQUE,
It will be seen that the injunctive order against which relief is sought in CLARENCE SORIANO, OCTAVO DEPAWA, CARLITO LA TORRE, SEVERNO ILANO, JR.,
this case was issued in a case (No. 2643) in which no other relief is sought DOMINGO CAJIPE, ALAN ALEGRE, RAMON MARTINEZ, MA. GILDA HERNANDEZ,
than the issuance of a preliminary injunction in aid of the prior pending EDNA P. VILLANUEVA, DOLLY S. CANU, MELQUIADES C. ATIENZA, ELIGIO P. VERA
action in case No. 2541. CRUZ, ROGER C. BAGAN, ABUNDIO M. CALISTE
No ultimate substantive relief was sought in the second action. Respondents: JUAN PONCE ENRILE, MAJ. GENERAL FIDEL V. RAMOS, BRIG.
GENERAL PEDRO BALBANERO, COL. ABAD, COL. DAWIS, SERGIO APOSTOL, P/LT,
The granting of such preliminary injunction is an irregular act and beyond
RODOLFO M. GARCIA and JUDGE RICARDO TENSUAN
the jurisdiction of the Judge.
Summary: petitioners were arrested and charged with Illegal assembly following a
The preliminary injunction is purely subsidiary remedy, available in aid of
violent dispersal of a demonstration held with the jeepney strike called ATCO.
the right which is to be vindicated in the action wherein the preliminary
Provisional release of the petitioners was ordered. However, they remained in
injunction is issued.
detention having involed PDA allegedly issued against them. Original or copy of PDA
An independent action will not lie merely to obtain a preliminary
was never shown. They were subsequently charged with Inciting to sedition infos
injunction .There must be some substantive right to be enforced in the
did not recommend bail. They were released provisionally on orders of President
Marcos. The accused still continue to be in the custody of the law under an invalid
1 1st, restraining the defendants Azarraga from asking from their codefendant Hijos de I. de la Rama charge of inciting to sedition. WON the criminal prosecution of a case (inciting to
more money from their credit than that which corresponds to the first month, if it had already been sedition) may be enjoined YES. Preliminary injunction has been issued by the
delivered to them, according to the mortgage contract aforementioned;. Supreme Court to prevent the threatened unlawful arrest of petitioners. There is a
2nd, restraining at the same time the defendant Hijos de I. de la Rama from delivering to its
codefendants any sum on account of the said credit beyond the amount already delivered;.
need to prosecute criminal offenders but this should not be a license to violate every
3rd, equally restraining all the defendants from rescinding the mortgage contract aforementioned citizens right to due process or manipulate the law to suit dictatorial tendencies.
until further order of the court;.
4th, the plaintiff also prays that a copy of the injunction be remitted to the register of deeds with Nature: This petition was originally filed on February 13, 1985 to secure the release
instructions to annotate it in the registry and in the certificates of title Nos. 9785, 9804, and 10351, of petitioners on habeas corpus and to permanently enjoin the City Fiscal of Quezon
and to abstain from registering any annotation relative to transactions with respect to said City from investigating charges of "Inciting to Sedition" against petitioners.
properties until further order of the court, and. Facts:
5th, likewise prays that costs in this case be adjudged against the defendants Azarraga
AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 8

Jan 28, 1985 - Petitioners were arrested by elements of the Northern Police Ratio:
District following the forcible and violent dispersal of a demonstration held
GR: criminal prosecution may not be restrained or stayed by injunction,
in sympathy with the jeepney strike called by the Alliance of Concerned
preliminary or final.
Transport Organization (ACTO).
o Exceptions: (based on different jurisprudence)
They were charged with Illegal Assembly (1 st offense) in Quezon City RTC.
Except for Brocka, et al. who were charged as leaders of the offense of a. To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused
Illegal Assembly and for whom no bail was recommended, the other b. When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid
petitioners were released on bail of P3,000.00 each. oppression or multiplicity of actions
Brocka, et al.'s provisional release was ordered only upon an urgent c. When there is a pre-judicial question which is sub judice
petition for bail d. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority
Feb9, 1985 - Despite service of the order of release, Brocka, et al. remained e. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation
in detention, respondents having invoked a Preventive Detention Action f. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent
(PDA) allegedly issued against them. g. Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense
Neither the original, duplicate original nor certified true copy of the PDA h. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution
was ever shown to them. i. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for
Feb 11, 1985 - Brocka, et al. were subsequently charged with Inciting to vengeance
Sedition (2nd offense) without prior notice to their counsel. The original j. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a
informations filed recommended no bail. The circumstances surrounding motion to quash on that ground has been denied
the hasty filing of the second offense: Preliminary injunction has been issued by the Supreme Court to prevent
o Utterances allegedly constituting 2nd offense (recommended no the threatened unlawful arrest of petitioners.
bail) are the same utterances which are the subject of the 1 st
Brocka, et al. have cited the circumstances to show that the criminal
offense (entitled to be released on bail as a matter of
proceedings had become a case of persecution, having been undertaken by
Constitutional right) - apparently respondents have conspired to
state officials in bad faith.
deprive Brocka, et al of the right to bail.
Respondents invoked a PDA in refusing Brocka, et al.'s release from
Feb 14, 1985 - They were released provisionally on orders of President detention (before their release on orders of then Pres. Marcos). This PDA
Marcos. Narrated in Courts resolution in petition for habeas corpus filed by was issued on January 28, 1985, but was invoked only on February 9, 1985
Sedfrey Ordonez in behalf of Brocka, et al: (upon receipt of the trial court's order of release).
o In Return of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, respondents said all
o Under the guidelines issued, PDAs shall be invoked within 24
accused had already been released.
hours (in Metro Manila) or 48 hours (outside Metro Manila).
o Petitioners, nevertheless, still argue that the petition has not
o Noteworthy also is Brocka, et al.'s claim that, despite subpoenas
become moot and academic because the accused continue to be in for its production, the prosecution merely presented a purported
the custody of the law under an invalid charge of inciting to xerox copy of the invoked PDA
sedition.
The hasty filing of the second offense, premised on a spurious and
Brocka, et al. contend that respondents' manifest bad faith and/or inoperational PDA, certainly betrays respondent's bad faith and malicious
harassment are sufficient bases for enjoining their criminal prosecution,
intent to pursue criminal charges against Brocka, et al.
second offense of inciting to sedition is illegal (premised on one and the
Ilagan case - that "individuals against whom PDAs have been issued should
same act -attending and participating in the ACTO jeepney strike)
be furnished with the original, and the duplicate original, and a certified
o There may be a complex crime from a single act (Art. 48, RTC), the
true copy issued by the official having official custody of the PDA, at the
law does not allow the splitting of a single act into two offenses
time of the apprehension"
and filing two informations (double jeopardy)
There is a need to prosecute criminal offenders but this should not be a
Issue/Held: WON the criminal prosecution of a case (inciting to sedition) may be license to violate every citizens right to due process or manipulate the law
enjoined YES to suit dictatorial tendencies.

AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 9

The sham and hasty preliminary investigation were clear signals that the stake (its a rescission case). Also generally an injunction is only enforceable within
prosecutors intended to keep Brocka, et al. in detention until the second the region. But there is an exception when, in interest of justice, the principal
offense of "Inciting to Sedition" could be facilitated and justified without business addresses of the parties and the decisions on the acts to be restrained are
need of issuing a warrant of arrest anew. originated within the Court's jurisdiction. Both parties are residents of the National
o Informations for second offense were hastily filed two days after Capital Region. AGA is a resident of San Juan while EBE is residing at Paraaque.
Brocka, et al.'s release from detention was ordered by the trial. Also, as noted by the Pasig Court all orders to be enforced and executed at Embassy
J. Salonga v. Cruz Pao - Infinitely more important than conventional Farms in Loma de Gato, Marilao, Bulacan emanated from its main office which is
adherence to general rules of criminal procedure is respect for the citizen's located at the 2nd Floor, Agora Complex, Domingo Street, San Juan, Metro Manila.
right to be free not only from arbitrary arrest and punishment but also
from unwarranted and vexatious prosecution . . ." Facts:
Where there is manifest bad faith that accompanies the filing of criminal
charges (like prevented from enjoying provisional release) until such time 1. August 2, 1984, Alexander G. Asuncion (AGA) and Eduardo B. Evangelists
that charges were filed and where a sham preliminary investigation was (EBE) entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Under said
hastily conducted, charges that are filed as a result should lawfully be MOA, EBE obligated himself to transfer to AGA 19 parcels of agricultural
enjoined. land registered in his name with an aggregate area of 104,447 square
meters located in Loma de Gato, Marilao, Bulacan, together with the stocks,
equipment and facilities of a piggery farm owned by Embassy Farms, Inc.
EBE also obligated himself to cede, transfer all of his shares of stocks" in
6. EMBASSY FARMS vs. CA Embassy Farins Inc. to AGA or his nominees" until the total of said shares of
stock so transferred shall constitute 90% of the paid-in-equity of said
G.R. No. 80682 August 13, 1990 corporation" (EBE owned 90% of the stocks of Embassy farm).
2. This was for a total sum of close to P8,630,000.00. Within a reasonable time,
EMBASSY FARMS, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS (INTERMEDIATE AGA also obligated himself to organize and register a new corporation with
APPELLATE COURT), HON. ZENAIDA S. BALTAZAR, Judge of the Regional Trial Court, an authorized capital stock of P10,000,000.00 which upon registration will
Branch CLVIII, (158), Pasig, Metro Manila, VOLTAIRE B. CRUZ, Deputy Sheriff, take over all the rights and liabilities of AGA.
Branch CLVIII, Regional Trial Court, Pasig, Metro Manila and EDUARDO B. 3. Pursuant to clause 8 of the MOA, on August 2, 1984, EBE turned over to
EVANGELISTA, respondents. AGA the effective control and management of the piggery at Embassy
Farms. Likewise, in accordance with clause 15, EBE served as President and
Emergency: Asuncion (AGA) entered into a MOA with Evangelista (EBE) for the sale Chief Executive of the Embassy Farms with a monthly salary of P15,000.
of 19 parcels of land with a piggery farm and EBEs majority shares in Embassy EBE also endorsed in blank all his shares of stock including that of his wife
Farms for P8.6m located in Bulacan. EBE transferred control of the farm to AGA and and three nominees with minor holdings in Embassy Farms Inc.
endorsed his shares but did not deliver them to AGA. Both sides were claiming the 4. However, despite the endorsement, EBE retained possession of said shares
other wasnt fulfilling his end of the deal. AGA files in RTC Pasig a case of rescission and opted to deliver to AGA only upon full compliance of the latter of his
of the MOA. Upon application of EBE, RTC Pasig issues a preliminary injunction obligations under the Memorandum of Agreement.
keeping the status quo prior to the MOA and that EBE shall maintain control of 5. Notwithstanding the non-delivery of the shares of stocks, AGA transferred a
Embassy Farms. Embassy Farms petitioned to CA and CA restrained the prelim total of 8,602 shares to several persons.
injunction. Embassy farms then filed its own injunction case vs EBE. Certiorari of
EBE to CA. CA resolved by upholding the prelim injunction of RTC Pasig and cancels AGA CIVIL CASE
their own previous restraining order. Embassy Farms now questions the writ of
prelim injunction on several grounds. SC It was proper for RTC pasig to issue the 6. On April 10, 1986, AGA filed an action for rescission of the MOA with
injunction Abecause it would be unjust and unfair to allow AGA to control and damages in RTC Pasig, alleging EBE's misrepresentation on the piggery
manage the Embassy Farms despite the fact that AGA is asking for the rescission of business since said business is actually losing and EBE's failure to execute
the MOA. It was proper to maintain status quo PRIOR to MOA since EBE has more at
AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 10

the deeds of conveyance of the 19 parcels of land. (Not said explicitly but Issue: W/N CA committed a reversible error when it sustained the order dated July
EBE applied for preliminary injunction) 13, 1987 of the Pasig Court and lifted the restraining order it had issued. NO
7. July 30 1987, The Pasig Court granted an order with writ of preliminary
injunction Embassy Farms argued that the Pasig Court has no jurisdiction to hear and
a. xxx whereby restraining the plaintiff (AGA) from disposing the decide EBE's application of a writ of preliminary injunction because the
stocks including rights sucklings, equipment and other facilities in ouster of EBE and his reinstatement as President and CEO of Embassy
Embassy Farms, Inc; from harrassing defendant (EBE) and his Farms is an intra-corporate matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
employees and associates; and preventing defendant from SEC. Embassy Farms also claimed that the Pasig Court did not acquire
discharging, performing and exercising his duties, prerogatives as jurisdiction over Embassy Farms because it was not made a party in the
director, president and chief executive of Embassy Farms, Inc. xxx case. Neither could the orders of the Pasig Court be enforced at Loma de
subject to defendant's filing a bond of P1,750,000.00 conditioned Gato, Marilao Bulacan, the principal office of the corporation, because it is
upon defendant's payment to such plaintiff Asuncion of all located outside of the National Capital Judicial Region. And that the writ
damages which the latter may sustain by reason of this injunction was irregularly issued because it was issued 1 day ahead of the injunction
in the event the Court shall finally decide otherwise and in case bond.
said plaintiff, Alexander G. Asuncion is adjudged entitled to such It must be stressed at the outset that the case at bar is merely an offshoot of
damages. a controversy yet to be decided on the merits by the Pasig Court. The action
8. On September 18, 1987, Embassy Farms, Inc. filed a petition with the CA for for rescission filed by AGA in the Pasig Court will ultimately settle the
prohibition with preliminary injunction. On September 22 1987, the CA controversy as to whether it is AGA or EBE or both parties who have
enjoined the enforcement of the Pasig Court's order dated July 30, 1987. reneged on their obligations under the MOA. We do not want to pre-empt
the Pasig Court.
EMBASSY FARM CIVIL CASE
TRANSFER OF STOCKS
9. Meanwhile, on July 30, 1987, Embassy Farms instituted an action for
Injunction with damages against EBE in RTC Malolos. In its complaint it Although EBE has indorsed in blank the shares outstanding in his name he
alleged that sometime on July 11, 1987, EBE forced his way inside the has not delivered the certificate of stocks to AGA because the latter has not
Embassy Farms and while inside took some cash and cheek amounting to fully complied with his obligations under the MOA. There being no delivery
P423,275.45. of the indorsed shares of stock AGA cannot therefore effectively transfer to
10. Motion to dismiss of EBE was denied. Thus, he filed a Petition for other person or his nominees the undelivered shares of stock. Under the
certiorari and Prohibition with preliminary injunction with the CA. CA Corporation Code, shares of stock may be transferred by delivery to the
issued a consolidated resolution sustaining the order dated July 30, 1987 of transferree of the certificate properly indorsed. However, no transfer shall
the Pasig Court. Accordingly, it set aside and lifted the restraining order be valid until it is recorded in the books of the corporation.
dated September 22, 1987. CA based its resolution on its findings that the
In the case at bar the indorsed certificate of stock was not actually
Board of Directors of Embassy Farms are nominees of AGA so that it
delivered to AGA so that EBE is still the controlling stockholder of Embassy
considered AGA and Embassy Farms as one and the same person. It noted
Farms despite the execution of the MOA and the turn over of control and
that EBE has not delivered the certificate of stock outstanding in his name
management of the Embassy Farms to AGA on August 2, 1984.
in the books of the corporation to AGA because the latter allegedly has not
complied with the terms and conditions of the MOA. Also the appellate
court opined that "(I)n the instant case, it will appear that no transfer of PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
shares of stock has been made by EBE to AGA as there had been no delivery
of the certificate in order to produce or effect the transfer of such shares of When AGA filed on April 10, 1986 an action for the rescission of contracts
stock." Embassy Farms filed MR denied. with damages, the Pasig Court merely restored and established the status
quo prior to the execution of the MOA by the issuance of the writ of
preliminary injunction. It would be unjust and unfair to allow AGA and his

AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 11

nominees to control and manage the Embassy Farms despite the fact that Case at bar is not an intracorporate controversy within the exclusive and
AGA is not asking for the delivery of the indorsed certificate of stock but for original jurisdiction of the SEC. it is not a controversy between corp and
the rescission of the MOA. Rescission would result in mutual restitution so public, or corp and state, or corp and stockholders, or among stockholders.
it is but proper to allow EBE to manage the farm. Compared to AGA, EBE Here the controversy in reality involves the contractual rights and
would be more interested in the preservation of the assets of Embassy obligations of AGA and EBE under the MOA. AGA or his nominees are not
Farms during the pendency of the main case. even the lawful stockholders of Embassy Farms because EBE for a
justifiable reason has withheld the delivery of the indorsed certificate of
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ENFORCEABILITY OUTSIDE JURISDICTION stocks.

Generally, an injunction under Section 21 of BP 129 is enforceable within WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
the region. The reason is that the trial court has no jurisdiction to issue a
writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin acts being performed or about to be REQUISITES
performed outside its territorial boundaries. However, to avoid an
irreparable prejudice We allowed in Dagupan Electric Corp et al. v. Pano the 1. CERENO vs. DICTADO (GR No. 81550)
enforcement of an injunction to restrain acts committed outside the Petitioner: Cesar A. Cereno
territorial jurisdiction of the issuing court. In Dagupan case We ruled that a Respondent: Hon. Luis D. Dictado, Presiding Judge, RTC at Daet, Camarines Norte,
CFI has jurisdiction to try a case although the acts sought be restrained are Ramon B. Asis and Job De Vela, OIC, Office of the Municipal Mayor, Vinzons,
committed outside its territorial jurisdiction where the principal business Camarines Norte
addresses of the parties and the decisions on the acts to be restrained are Date: Aprile 15, 1988
located and originated within the Court's jurisdiction.
Here to avoid an injustice and irreparable injury, We apply the exception Summary: Cereno and Asis were mayoralty candidates of Vinzons. Cereno was
rather than the general rule. Both parties are residents of the National proclaimed and he took his oath of office. Thereafter, an election protest was filed by
Capital Region. AGA is a resident of 7-A Lake Street, San Juan, Metro Manila Asis and Judge Dictado issued an order, ordering Cereno to desist from taking his
while EBE is residing at 113 R. Tirona Street, BF Homes, Paraaque, Metro oath of office. Cereno filed a manifestation stating that he has already taken his oath
Manila. of office so it is now moot and academic. On the day that he was about to assume
Besides, as noted by the Pasig Court all orders to be enforced and executed office, he was served with a copy of the supplemental order of Dictado ordering him
at Embassy Farms in Loma de Gato, Marilao, Bulacan emanated from its to refrain from assuming office or to stop, desist and refrain from continuing until
main office which is located at the 2nd Floor, Agora Complex, Domingo further orders. SC held that Dictado was wrong when he ordered Cereno to desist
Street, San Juan, Metro Manila. from assuming office. The pendency of the election protest filed by Asis is not
sufficient basis to enjoin Cereno from assuming office. The claim of Asis to the
INJUNCTION BEFORE BOND contested office is a contingent right which could only ripen into an actual right
favorable to him when a judgment is rendered to this effect. An injunction is not to
Suffice it to say that aside from the factual findings of the CA that the date protect contingent or future rights nor is it a remedy to enforce an abstract right.
July 31, 1987, appearing on the bond is a typographical error, it must be
pointed out that with the injunction bond the party enjoined is amply Facts:
protected against loss or damage in case it is finally decided that the 1. Petitioner Cereno and respondent Asis were mayoralty candidates for the
injunction ought not to have been granted. municipality of Vinzons, Camarines Norte in the local election of 1988.
Cereno was proclaimed by the Municipal Board of Canvassers as the duly
elected mayor of said town. He took his oath of office before the Second
INTRACORPORATE ISSUE Assistant Prosecutor Fiscal of Camarines Norte.
2. Asis filed an election protest before the RTC of Daet, Camarines Norte but
the same was ordered dismissed on the same day on the ground that the
claim that 84 votes case for Santiago Cereno, another mayoralty candidate,
AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 12

were credited to Cesar Sereno (Petitioner), and that petitioner had already the election protest is decided against Cereno, he has a lawful right to
been proclaimed. assume and perform the duties of Mayor.
3. Another election protest was filed by Asis seeking a judicial recount of the 3. The claim of Asis to the contested office is a contingent right which could
votes cast in 2 precincts. Respondent Judge Dictado issued an order that only ripen into an actual right favorable to him when a judgment is
Cereno desist or refrain from taking his oath of office until further orders of rendered to this effect. An injunction is not to protect contingent or future
the court. Cereno filed a manifestation informing the court that he has rights nor is it a remedy to enforce an abstract right. Also, the OIC has no
already taken his oath of office previously so that the restraining order has lawful right to continue discharging the duties of Mayor of said town as
become moot and academic. Cereno appears to have been duly elected to said office and has qualified
4. Due to the absence of Judge Dictado, Judge Dames was requested by Cereno thereto.
to act on his manifestation, who issued an order that the restraining order
of the court has become moot and academic.
5. Thereafter, Cereno sent a letter to Job de Vela, the municipal Officer-In- 2. PHILIP YU vs. CA
Charge (OIC), to the effect that he will assum the functions of Municipal
Mayor and requested a formal turn over. But as Cereno took steps to assum GR No. 86683
the office, he was served a copy of the supplemental order of Judge Dictado January 21, 1993
ordering him to refrain from assuming office or if he has already assumed
office to stop, desist and refrain from continuing until futher orders from Petitioner: Philip Yu
the court. Respondents: CA; Judge of Manila RTC; Unisia Merchandising (private respondent)
6. Cereno filed an ex-parte urgent motion to set aside the supplemental order
but Judge Dictado but the later has not acted on the same. Hence, this Recit-ready
petition. Yu, exclusive distributor of Mayfair products in the Philippines, filed an injunction
suit against Unisia, who purchased Mayfair products through FNF Trading in
Issue: WoN Judge Dictado acted in GADALEJ in ordering Cereno to restrain from the Germany for sale in the Philippines. RTC and CA denied the issuance of a writ of
performance of the functions of the office of the Municipal Mayor - YES HE DID injunction, because Unisia is a stranger to the contract between Mayfair and Yu. SC
said that the purpose of injunction is to prevent contractual interference by a
HELD: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the supplemental order of the stranger to such contract, which is exactly what Unisia is in this case. Also, the
respondent judge is REVERSED and set aside for being null and void without damage done by Unisia was irreparable, and thus a writ of injunction should issue.
prejudice to the election protest proceeding which should be terminated with
deliberate dispatch. Immediately executory. Facts (short and simple case)
Philip Yu claims to be the exclusive distributor of wallcovering products,
1. Sec. 5 of RA 6636 clearly states that the duly elected local officials shall produced by the House of Mayfair (an English company).
assume office on February 2, 1988. Cereno was proclaimed as the duly Yu filed a suit for injunction against Unisia Merchandising, who Yu claimed
elected mayor of Vinzons, Camarines Norte on January 20, 1988 and took to have purchased Mayfair merchandise through FNF Trading in West
his oath of office on January 22, 1988 before the filing of the election Germany, and sold said merchandise in the Philippines.
protest on January 25, 1988 by Asis. As he appears to be the duly elected Yu also claimed that Unisia misled Mayfair, by saying that Unisia intended
mayor of the aforesaid town, the law mandates that he assume office on to ship the goods to Nigeria, but in reality sold goods in the Philippines.
February 2, 1988. Judge Dictado committed grave abuse of discretion, and Unisia claimed that the contract between Mayfair and Yu was only binding
acted in excess of his jurisdiction in ordering Cereno to desist and refrain between them, and did not bind Unisia.
from assuming office on the said date against the clear provisions of Sec. 5
Using this last point, the RTC denied the complaint for the issuance of
of RA 6636.
preliminary injunction.
2. The pendency of the election protest filed by Asis is not sufficient basis to
o Basically, the RTC ruled that since there was no privity of contract
enjoin Cereno from assuming office as required of him by law. The
between Yu and Unisia, an order to restrain Unisia from selling
efficiency of public administration should not be impaired. Until and unless

AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 13

goods bought from FNF Trading would be without legal o And it would be highly impractical if Yu would file a suit for every
justification. time Unisia made a sale of Mayfair products
CA also denied the issuance of a writ, by stating that Yu was not able to
demonstrate an unequivocal right which he sought to protect, and that WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals
Unisia is indeed a stranger to the contract between Mayfair and Yu dated January 13, 1989 in CA-G.R. SP No. 16019 and the Order dated October 16,
Nevertheless the SC granted a TRO against Unisia. 1988 issued by the magistrate at the court of origin are hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Let this case be remanded to the court of origin for issuance of a writ of
Issue/Held: W/N the CA and RTC were right in dismissing the complaint for preliminary injunction upon petitioner's posting of a bond in the sum of Fifty
injunction?NO. Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos to be approved by said court, to remain effective
during the trial on the merits until final determination of the case. The manager of
Ratio: private respondent. Frank Sia, is hereby ordered to pay to the Clerk of Court within
That the exclusive sales contract between Mayfair and Yu is beside the five (5) days from notice hereof the fine of P500.00, as previously imposed on him,
point (hence, completely irrelevant). with a warning that failure to do so will be dealt with more severely.
o This is because the remedy of injunction is afforded to prevent
a wrongful interference with contracts by strangers to such
contracts, where the legal remedy is insufficient and the resulting 3. HERNANDEZ vs. NAPOCOR
injury is irreparable. GR No. 145328 | March 23, 2006
o The liability of Unisia, thus, does not emanate from the contract
between Mayfair and Yu, but it is an independent act generative Petitioners: Eduardo F. Hernandez, Encarbacion R. Legaspi, Jaime Blanco, Enrique
of civil liability. Belo, etc.
o Note that the SC has not pronounced Unisias liability at this stage, Respondent: National Power Corporation [NAPOCOR/NPC]
The SCs job in this particular case is simply to rectify certain
misperceptions as regards the feasibility of requesting a Summary: NAPOCOR constructed steel towers as part of its Power Transmission
preliminary injunction to enjoin a stranger to an agreement. Project which are very near the houses of the petitioners. Petitioners opposed such
The right to perform an exclusive distributorship agreement and to reap the because they found studies linking exposure to electromagnetic fields with
profits resulting from such performance are proprietary rights which a leukemia/cancer. Even Chiz opposed such in his privilege speech. After an impasse
party may protect. in the negotiations, the petitioners filed for TRO/Writ of Prelim. Injunction in the
o Such right may not be diminished or rendered illusory by the trial court. TC granted the writ. NPC filed certiorari in the CA, alleging that the TC
expedient act of utilizing or interposing a person or firm to obtain cannot do such thing because PD 1818 prohibits courts from issuing TROs/PIs in
goods from the supplier to defeat the very purpose for which the cases involving infrastructure projects. The SC disagreed, because PD 1818 has its
exclusive distributorship was conceptualized, at the expense of the own limitations, and that the right to health of the petitioners is more important.
sole authorized distributor
o Basically, you cant do indirectly what you cant do directly. (This Chico-Nazario, J.:
refers to Unisias act of purchasing Mayfair shizz through FNF Facts
Trading) With health risks linked to exposure to electromagnetic radiation as their
The act of Unisia in misleading Mayfair that the goods will be shipped to battle cry, petitioners, all residents of Dasmarias Village, are clamoring for
Nigeria is akin to the scenario of a third person who induces a party to the reversal of the decision dated 3 May 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
renege on or violate his undertaking under a contract, thereby entitling the G.R. SP No. 57849 as well as the resolution dated 27 September 2000,
other contracting party to relief therefrom denying their MR.
o The damage that resulted to Yu was irreparable Sometime in 1996, NAPOCOR began the construction of 29 decagon-shaped
o Each sale made by Unisia is continuous and repeated, and is a steel poles or towers with a height of 53.4 meters to support overhead high
constant and frequent recurrence tension cables in connection with its 230 Kilovolt Sucat-Araneta-
o Thus, no fair and reasonable redress was available Balintawak Power Transmission Project.

AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 14

Said transmission line passes through the Sergio Osmea, Sr. Highway Restraining Orders or Preliminary Injunctions in Cases Involving
(South Superhighway), the perimeter of Fort Bonifacio, and Dasmarias Infrastructure and Natural Resource Development Projects of, and
Village proximate to Tamarind Road, where petitioners homes are. Public Utilities Operated by, the Government. Hence, the trial court
Alarmed by the sight of the towering steel towers, petitioners scoured the has lack of jurisdiction in acting on the matter.
internet on the possible adverse to their health. Petitioners learned that In the interregnum, the trial court ordered the issuance of a writ of
exposure to electromagnetic fields may cause cancer or leukemia. preliminary injunction against NPC. An injunction was necessary to stay
They aired this growing concern to the NAPOCOR, which conducted a series respondent NAPOCORs activation of its power lines due to the possible
of meetings with them. health risks posed to the petitioners. NPC is prohibited from
Cong. Francis Escudero, in his privileged speech, denounced the cavalier energizing/transmitting electricity through the said cables, upon posting of
manner with which Napocor ignored safety and consultation requirements P5M bond.
in the questioned project in his privileged speech. o Asserting its jurisdiction over the case, the trial court was of the
This eventually reached the attention of the Chairman of the House view that Presidential Decree No. 1818 and jurisprudence
Committee of Energy, Rep. Fuentebella. NPC gave him four options that proscribing injunctions against infrastructure projects do not find
they have come up with the residents to address the problem: application in the case at bar because of the health risks
o Option 1 = Transfer the line to Lawton Avenue, P 111.84 involved.
million(proposal of Dasmarias/Forbes) CA reversed the order of the trial court, sided with NAPOCOR.
o Option 2 = Maintain 12 meters distance along the village, P 77.60 o The proscription on injunctions against infrastructure projects of
million (pushed for by NPC) the government is clearly mandated by the above-quoted Section
o Option 3 = Construct an underground line P 482.00 million 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1818, as reiterated by the Supreme
o Option 4 = Reroute along C-5 and South Luzon Expressway, P Court in its various Circulars.
1,018.83 million
Having reached an impasse in the negotiations, petitioners filed a Issue/Held:
Complaint for Damages with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Whether or not the trial court may issue a TRO and Preliminary Injunction
Restraining Order and/or a Writ of Preliminary Injunction against to enjoin the construction and operation of the towers by the NAPOCOR,
NAPOCOR. notwithstanding Presidential Decree No. 1818 YES.
o Their primary contention is that the hazardous effects of the
radiation would greatly affect their health; Rationale:
o Prayed for damages and relocation of the transmission lines to Presidential Decree No. 1818 was issued on 16 January 1981, prohibiting
Lawton Avenue. judges from issuing restraining orders against government infrastructure
Judge Ibay issued an order, which temporarily restrained the respondent projects. In part, the decree says, "No court in the Philippines shall have
from energizing and transmitting high voltage electric current through the jurisdiction to issue any restraining order, preliminary injunction or
said project. (Note: Iba pa to sa PI na iissue nya mamaya) preliminary order, preliminary mandatory injunction in any case, dispute
NPC filed a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for TRO/Writ of Preliminary or controversy involving an infrastructure project."
Injunction with the Court of Appeals assailing the trial courts order. o Garcia vs. Burgos PD 181 was held to prohibit courts from
o Primary Contention: There is this law, Presidential Decree No. issuing an injunction against any infrastructure project in order
1818 2 (1981), entitled "Prohibiting Courts from Issuing not to disrupt or hamper the pursuit of essential government
projects or frustrate the economic development effort of the
nation.
This rule, however, is not absolute:
2 Sec. 1 provides: No Court in the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order,
preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction in any case, dispute, or controversy
involving an infrastructure project, or a mining, fishery, forest or other natural resource
development project of the government, or any public utility operated by the government, including
among other public utilities for transport of the goods or commodities, stevedoring and arrastre continuing the execution or implementation of any such project, or the operation of such public
contracts, to prohibit any person or persons, entity or government official from proceeding with or utility or pursuing any lawful activity necessary for such execution, implementation or operation.
AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 15

o The prohibition extends only to the issuance of injunctions or After all, for a writ of preliminary injunction to be issued, the Rules do not
restraining orders against administrative acts in controversies require that the act complained of be in violation of the rights of the
involving facts or the exercise of discretion in technical cases. applicant. Indeed, what the Rules require is that the act complained of be
o On issues clearly outside this dimension and involving questions probably in violation of the rights of the applicant.
of law, this Court declared that courts could not be prevented from o Probability is enough basis for injunction to issue as a provisional
exercising their power to restrain or prohibit administrative acts. remedy, which is different from injunction as a main action where
In the case at bar, petitioners sought the issuance of such on the ground one needs to establish absolute certainty as basis for a final and
that NPC impinged on their right to health under the Constitution. permanent injunction.
Moreover, petitioners asserted that there was no consultation conducted Pending the final determination of the case, it is prudent for the trial court
with them, which is in violation of the Local Government Code. to preserve the status quo, since the writ is a preservative remedy to
o The right to health and the question of violation of the LGC are ensure the protection of a partys substantive rights pending the final
veritable questions of law that invested the trial court with judgment in the principal action.
jurisdiction to issue a TRO and subsequently, a preliminary o At times referred to as the "Strong Arm of Equity," we have
injunction. As such, these questions of law divest the case from the consistently ruled that there is no power the exercise of which is
protective mantle of Presidential Decree No. 1818. more delicate and which calls for greater circumspection than the
The issuance by the TC finds legal support under Section 3, Rule 58 of the issuance of an injunction. It should only be extended in cases of
Rules of Court (See codal same lang, under the GROUNDS) great injury where courts of law cannot afford an adequate or
The rule on preliminary injunction merely requires that unless restrained, commensurate remedy in damages; "in cases of extreme urgency;
the act complained of will probably violate his rights and tend to render the where the right is very clear; where considerations of relative
judgment ineffectual. inconvenience bear strongly in complainants favor; where there is
There is also adequate evidence to prove that the project would imperil the a willful and unlawful invasion of plaintiffs right against his
health of the petitioners: protest and remonstrance, the injury being a continuing one, and
o Adduced in evidence copies of studies linking the project to cancer where the effect of the mandatory injunction is rather to
and leukemia; reestablish and maintain a preexisting continuing relation
o NPC brochure mandates 20-meter easement from the lines between the parties, recently and arbitrarily interrupted by the
because of the health risks, which falls short of the 12-meter defendant, than to establish a new relation. (PPA vs. Cipres
easement that NPC was proposing. Stevedoring).
o Privilege speech of Chiz With regard to the circulars, there is not a hint suggesting an unbridled
o Series of negotiations and meetings prohibition against the issuance of TROs/PIs.
We take judicial notice that the area alluded to as location of the NAPOCOR o Circular 2-91, 13-93, and 68-94: it seeks to enjoin the
project is a fragile zone being proximate to local earthquake faults, indiscriminate issuance of court injunctions;
particularly the Marikina fault, among other zones. o Circular 7-99: Judges are enjoined to observe utmost caution,
Moreover, the Local Government Code, requires conference with the prudence, and judiciousness in the issuance of TROs/PIs to avoid
affected communities of a government project. NAPOCOR, palpably, made a any suspicion that its issuance or grant was for consideration
shortcut to this requirement. In fact, there appears a lack of exhaustive other than the strict merits of the case.
feasibility studies on NAPOCORs part before making a go with the project In sum, what Presidential Decree No. 1818 aims to avert is the untimely
on hand. frustration of government infrastructure projects, particularly by
A preliminary injunction is likewise justified prior to a final determination provisional remedies, to the detriment of the greater good by disrupting
of the issues of whether or not NAPOCOR ignored safety and consultation the pursuit of essential government projects or frustrate the economic
requirements in the questioned project. Indeed, the court should grant such development effort of the nation.
if the purpose of the other party is to shield a wrongdoing. A ruling to the o It was not meant to be a blanket prohibition so as to disregard the
contrary would amount to an erosion of judicial discretion. fundamental right to health, safety and well-being of a community
guaranteed by the fundamental law of the land.

AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 16

4. OLALIA vs. HIZON PRIDE---TOCINO, LONGANIZA, CHITCHARON AND CORNED


G.R. No. 87913 May 6, 1991 BEEF," pending the termination of this litigation, and/or unless a
contrary Order is issued by this Court.
Petitioners: LEONOR A. OLALIA and her husband JESUS G. OLALIA Olalia, without filing a MR, immediately went to the CA on certiorari and
Respondents: LOLITA O HIZON, represented by her Atty. In Fact, ATTY. ABRAHAM asked that the order be set aside. CA issued a temporary restraining order,
P. GOROSPE then a preliminary injunction. The petition was denied on the ground that
the RTC had not committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the
Summary: Hizon filed a complaint for unfair competition with damages and prayer questioned order.
for preliminary injunction against Olalia. The TRO and writ of preliminary injunction The appellate court declared that the conclusions reached by the trial court
was granted by the RTC of Pampanga. Olalia filed and MR and went to the CA on were if at all, only errors of judgment that were not correctible in a petition
certiorari. The CA sustained the ruling of the RTC. Our issue in this case whether, on for certiorari. The conclusions were reached by the trial judge according to
the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearings on the motion for preliminary his own perceptions based on a study of the evidence submitted to him at
injunction, the Order was correctly issued. NO The SC held that the submission of the hearings on the motion, including the testimony of witnesses on the
Olalia that Hizon had not suffered business losses but in fact had even increased her alleged similarity of the trade names and its effect on the private
sales during the period of the alleged unfair competition. Such profits were not respondent's business. There was no arbitrariness.
denied at all by Hizon; on the contrary, she expressly admitted them on cross-
examination. Worse, Hizon also could not give an idea of the reasonable profit she Issue: Whether, on the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearings on the
would have made were it not for the Olalia's supposed infringement and was unable motion for preliminary injunction, the Order was correctly issued. NO
to even only approximate her losses. In short, there was not enough evidence
presented at the hearings to substantiate her claims of injury as a justification for Ratio:
the issuance of the preliminary injunction. We issued a temporary restraining order against the implementation of the
challenged decision.
Facts: A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action
This case involves a conflict between two sisters-in-law who are prior to final judgment, requiring a person to refrain from a particular act.
competitors in the meat business. o It is merely temporary, subject to the final disposition of the
o Both sell tocino, longanisa, chicharon and corned beef, one under principal action. The justification for the preliminary injunction is
the name of Pampanga's Best and the other under the name of urgency. It is based on evidence tending to show that the action
Pampanga's Pride. complained of must be stayed lest the movant suffer irreparable
Lolita O. Hizon filed a complaint for unfair competition with damages and injury or the final judgment granting him relief sought become
prayer for preliminary injunction against her brother's wife, Leonor A. ineffectual. Necessarily, that evidence need only be a "sampling,"
Olalia. as it were, and intended merely to give the court an idea of the
o Hizon claimed that she had been using the business name justification for the preliminary injunction pending the decision of
Pampanga's Best since 1974 and that her goodwill had been the case on the merits. The evidence submitted at the hearing on
impaired because of the petitioner's use of the name Pampanga's the motion for the preliminary injunction is not conclusive of the
Pride for her own products. principal action, which has yet to be decided.
After issuing a temporary restraining order, which he extended twice, A careful reading of that order suggests that it was issued only on the
Judge Eli G.C. Natividad of the RTC of Pampanga, following several hearings, strength of the allegations in the complaint and the P50,000.00 bond flied
granted the application for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. by the plaintiff. That is not enough, of course.
o x x x this Court hereby orders defendants Leonor A. Olalia and her o We note, however, that it is also indicated therein that it was
husband Jesus G. Olalia and/or any other persons acting under issued "after notifying defendants and hearings conducted." We
their command, and/or for in their behalves, to desist and refrain may therefore presume that the trial judge regularly performed
from using the billboards, wrappers, and other promotional his functions and actually considered the evidence presented at
paraphernalias with the tradename/trademark "PAMPANGA'S the hearings before issuing his order.

AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 17

We agree with the respondent court (CA) that in a petition for certiorari, losses. In short, there was not enough evidence presented at the hearings to
the only allowable ground is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of substantiate her claims of injury as a justification for the issuance of the
jurisdiction. Alleged errors of fact or law committed by the court a quo do preliminary injunction.
not involve its jurisdiction and may therefore be corrected only in an To reiterate, the evidence to be submitted at the hearing on the motion for
ordinary appeal. The only exception is where such errors are shown to preliminary injunction need not be conclusive and complete, we find that
have been made with grave abuse of discretion or with such a capricious or the private respondent has not shown, at least tentatively, that she has
whimsical exercise of its judgment "so patent and gross as to amount to an been irreparably injured during the five month period the petitioner was
evasion of a positive duty, or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty operating under the trade name of Pampanga's Pride.
enjoined, or to act at all in contemplation of law. In such a situation, the o On this ground alone, we find that the preliminary injunction
questioned judgment of the court a quo may be validly reviewed and should not have been issued by the trial court. It bears
reversed on certiorari as tainted with grave abuse of discretion resulting in repeating that as a preliminary injunction is intended to prevent
loss of jurisdiction. irreparable injury to the plaintiff, that possibility should be clearly
It is observed that in sustaining the trial judge, the CA assumed that the established, if only provisionally, to justify the restraint of the act
former had exercised his best judgment in concluding that there were complained against. No such injury has been shown by the private
"confusing similarities" between the two trade names. It was influenced, respondent. Consequently, we must conclude that the issuance of
according to the respondent court, by such factors as "the sameness of the the preliminary injunction in this case, being utterly without basis,
goods offered for sale under the two competing trademarks/tradenames was tainted with grave abuse of discretion that we can correct on
(meat products like tocino, longanisa and chicharon), the close similarities certiorari.
in the respective sizes of the said goods, the group or class of the usual The following observation of this Court in Golding vs. Balatbat, is applicable
buyers of said goods, the use of the word "PAMPANGA" in both tradenames, to the case before us:
the short distance between the vicinities of the business of petitioners and o The very foundation of the jurisdiction to issue writ of injunction
private respondent, the use by both of the same attractive color rests in the existence of a cause of action and in the probability of
combination/scheme of red green and yellow." irreparable injury, inadequacy of pecuniary compensation and the
o We note, however, that this finding was based on incomplete prevention of the multiplicity of suits. Where facts are not shown
evidence. The appellate court was not being asked to rule finally to bring the case with these conditions, the relief of injunction
on the claimed "confusing similarities" but only tentatively, to should be refused.
determine if the preliminary injunction had been properly issued. Every court should remember that an injunction is a limitation upon the
Its finding on the supposed infringement was therefore freedom of action of the defendant and should not be granted lightly or
premature. Right or wrong, that finding is yet to be examined precipitately. It should be granted only when the court is fully satisfied that
more fully when the principal action is set for trial on the merits the law permits it and the emergency demands it.
and the parties complete their evidence in support of their Maintenance of the preliminary injunction issued by the trial court would
respective positions. prevent Olalia from using her accustomed business name and require her
The Court is not in a position at the present time to rule on such evidence, to operate in the market under a different name unfamiliar to her
which is not yet at hand, and so will not preempt the trial court in the customers. This would be unfair under the circumstances. As we have held
resolution of that question. that Hizon has not sufficiently shown that she is entitled to this remedy, it
There is one important matter, however, that both the trial court and the is just and equitable that it be lifted until the dispute between the parties is
respondent court have disregarded. This is the submission of Olalia that thoroughly threshed out and finally resolved after trial on the merits.
Hizon had not suffered business losses but in fact had even increased her Two more points must be made before we conclude.
sales during the period of the alleged unfair competition. Such profits were o Strictly speaking, the petitioners should have first filed a motion
not denied at all by Hizon; on the contrary, she expressly admitted them on for reconsideration with the trial court before filing their petition
cross-examination. Worse, Hizon also could not give an idea of the for certiorari with the respondent court, as that court correctly
reasonable profit she would have made were it not for the Olalia's held. Her apprehensions of the "futility" of a reconsideration
supposed infringement and was unable to even only approximate her because of the "partiality" of the trial judge are not acceptable and

AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 18

do not excuse her deviation from the prescribed procedure. Only The Faculty Club of the University of Santo Tomas, Inc. and San Beda
the importance of the issues did. College Lay Faculty Club, Inc. (respondents) filed a petition for declaratory
o We also note with disapproval the extension by Judge Natividad of relief with preliminary injunction before the CFI of Manila alleging that
the temporary restraining order dated September 22, 1988, for no they have existing agreements with their respective employers the UST
less than two times, to cover a total of 60 days. This was a clear and SBC for the establishment of gratuity and retirement funds which
violation of B.P. Blg. 224 limiting such order to twenty days only have been in operation prior to Sept. 1, 1957; that the Social Security
and of the decisions of this Court annulling such extensions. Judge Commission (SSC) tried to compel them to integrate their private system
Natividad is hereby reprimanded for violating these strictures. into the SSS on said date; that inasmuch as their private systems grant
Whether he did so out of ignorance of the law or out of willful more benefits to the members than the SSS the integration of their private
disobedience, neither of which can be condoned, he is warned that systems would deprive their members of property without due process of
repetition of this irregularity will be dealt with more severely. law, as well as would impair the obligation of their contract to the
We find that the Order dated November 28, 1988, was invalidly issued detriment of the members. Hence, they prayed for the issuance of
by the Regional Trial Court and that it should not have been sustained preliminary injunction ex parte commanding the SSC to desist from
by the Court of Appeals. compelling them to integrate during the pendency of the case on the
ground that, unless said Commission is enjoined, it might enforce the penal
Held: WHEREFORE, the challenged decision of the Court of Appeals is MODIFIED provisions of the Social Security Act.
and the preliminary injunction issued by the trial court is LIFTED. The Regional The court a quo, Judge Bayona, presiding, issued ex parte a writ of
Trial Court of San Fernando, Pampanga, is DIRECTED to proceed to the trial on the preliminary injunction enjoining the SSC from compelling the integration
merits of Civil Case No. 8243 and to decide the same with proper dispatch. sought for. SSC moved to dissolve the preliminary injunction but was
SO ORDERED. denied.
Respondent corporations advance the following reasons why the non-
5. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION vs. BAYONA issuance of the injunction would cause them irreparable injury:
GR No L-13555 | May 30, 1962 | Bautista Angelo a. To lift the injunction would mean to take away the availability of
the funds of respondent corporation from their members who may
Petitioner: The Social Security Commission borrow them in case of necessity
Respondents: The Hon. Judge Froilan Bayona, et al. b. To dissolve the injunction would be to take away respondents'
Summary: The Faculty Club of the University of Santo Tomas, Inc. and San Beda funds which they may never be able to get back taking note of Sec
College Lay Faculty Club, Inc. filed a petition for declaratory relief with preliminary 31 of the Social Security Act, as amended, which says that no
injunction to command SSC to desist from compelling them to integrate their private person shall be deemed to be vested with any property or right by
system into the SSS. They cited various reasons why the non-issuance of the writ of virtue of the enactment of said Act;
preliminary injunction would cause irreparable injury. (ex. take away available c. If respondent corporations refuse to join the SSS, criminal
funds, respondents may never take back their funds, criminal prosecution would prosecution would ensue against their officers and members.
ensue if the respondents refuse to join the SSS. I: W/N there is an existence of
irreparable injury NONE. R: "An irreparable injury which a court of equity will Issue/Held: W/N there is an existence of irreparable injury. NONE.
enjoin includes that degree of wrong of a repeated and continuing kind which
produce hurt, inconvenience, or damage that can be estimated only by conjecture, Ratio:
and not by any accurate standard of measurement". The array of figures regarding "An irreparable injury which a court of equity will enjoin includes that
the irreparable injury that the respondent corporations will suffer merely degree of wrong of a repeated and continuing kind which produce hurt,
succeeded in proving that the damage, if any, is susceptible of mathematical inconvenience, or damage that can be estimated only by conjecture, and not
computation. It is not then irreparable. If full compensation can be obtained by way by any accurate standard of measurement". An irreparable injury to
of damages, equity will not apply the remedy of injunction. authorize an injunction consists of "a serious charge of, or is destructive to,
the property it affects, either physically or in the character in which it has
Facts: been held and enjoined, or when the property has some peculiar quality or

AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 19

use, so that its pecuniary value will not fairly recompense the owner of the Any continuing breach of a valid negative covenant is irreparable by the ordinary
loss thereof". process of courts of law. By irreparable injury is not meant such injury as is
The array of figures regarding the irreparable injury that the respondent beyond the possibility of repair or compensation in damages, or great injury
corporations will suffer merely succeeded in proving that the damage, if or great damage, but that kind of injury, whether great or small, that ought not
any, is susceptible of mathematical computation. It is not then irreparable. to be inflicted, of such constant and frequent recurrence that no fair or
If full compensation can be obtained by way of damages, equity will not reasonable redress can be had therefore in a court of law.
apply the remedy of injunction.
Neither can respondent corporations contend that their integration would Facts:
mean the destruction of their existing private systems. The most that can Plaintiff has been engaged in Philippines in the business of manufacturing
happen would be a diminution of benefits in proportion to the reduction of ladies embroidered underwear for export. Material is imported and needle
the contributions to their private systems. But while they may suffer such workers embroider decorative patterns. The embroidered material is
reduction in benefits they also stand to benefit under the government returned to the factory in Manila where is prepared for export.
system. Respondents may continue with whatever private social system On September 1915, Ollendorff and Abrahamson entered into a contract
they may have at present as a complement to the benefits afforded to them wherein Ollendorff commits to employ Abrahamson for the first part of a
under the government system without prejudice to their integration into term of two years.
the government security system. Abrahamsom obligates himself to the promotion and furtherance of the
It may be conceded that, if the injunction be lifted, the possible damages business and interest of Ollendorff, and to perform such duties as may be
respondents may suffer are their contributions and those of their assigned to him.
employers to the government security system. But restoration of said o He also binds and obligates himself, his hiers, successors, and
contributions had been assured by petitioner should the provision under assigns that he will not enter or engage in a similar or competitive
consideration be declared unconstitutional and invalid. business to that of Ollendorff in any area in the Philippines for a
Respondents would be more harassed and prejudiced in case the period of five years.
constitutionality of the law is upheld, since they will have to pay all the Abrahamson continued to work for Ollendorff, until he left the plaintiffs
back contributions from September, 1957, including interests, up to the employ and went to the United States on account of ill health, after one
time the preliminary injunction is dissolved. Restoration would then be year.
much more difficult in view of the contingencies that may arise with regard Some months after his departure for the united States, Abrahamson
to the members of their private system. There are, to be sure, more weighty returned to Manila as the manager of the Philippine Underwear Company, a
reasons favoring the lifting of the injunction issued by respondent judge. corporation.
The corporation does not maintain a factory in the Philippines, but sends
PREMISES CONSIDERED, petition is granted. The writ of preliminary injunction material and embroidery designs from New York to its local representative
issued by respondent judge is hereby lifted. No costs. in the Philippines who employs Filipino needle workers to embroider the
deigns and make up the garments in their homes.
6. OLLENDORFF vs. ABRAHAMSON o The only difference from Ollendorff is the method of doing the
G.R. No. 13228 (September 13, 1918) finishing work the manufacture of the embroidered material into
finished garments.
William Ollendorff is engaged in the business of manufacturing ladies underwear for Defendant admits that both firms turn out the same class of goods and that
export. Ira Abrahamson was hired by Ollendorff for 2 years. Abrahamson obligates they are exported in the same market.
himself, his heirs, successors and assigns that he will not engage in a similar Shortly after Abrahamsons return, Ollendorff commenced this action, the
competitive business to that of Ollendorff in any area in the Philippines for a period principal purpose is to prevent by injunction, any further breach of
of 5 years. He left Ollendorffs business and went to the US and when he returned to Abrahamsons contract of employment. The lower court granted a
the Manila, he was already a manager of the Phil. Underwear Company. Preliminary preliminary injunction, and upon trial, the injunction was made perpetual.
injunction is properly issued. Defendant Abrahamson argues that plaintiff failed to substantiate the
averments of his complaints that such is actually competitive to that of

AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 20

Ollendroff. Further, Defendant argues that even assuming the breach of to demonstrate that it has in fact been caused by the illegal competition of
agreement, the judgment is erroneous because the contract is void, and the defendant.
that plaintiff failed to show that he has suffered any estimable pecuniary This is frequently the case in suit for the infringement of trademark rights,
damage. in which the courts may enjoin the continued use of the infringing mark,
although unable to assess damages for the past injury.
Issues/Held:
Whether the contract is void.- No
Whether the preliminary injunction is properly issued - Yes WHEN DOES WPI END?
SC:
The contract was not void. 1. BUYCO vs. BARAQUIA
It must be noted that the obligations created by contracts have the force of
law between the contracting parties and must be enforced in accordance Petitioner: PURISIMO BUYCORspondent: NELSON BARAQUIA
with their tenor. The only limitation is that such must not be contrary to
law, morals, or public order. In this case, there was no reason that would
G.R. No. 177486 December 21, 2009
show that the contract is prohibited.

Writ of Preliminary Injunction was properly issued. Emergency: Baraquia filed in RTC Iloilo vs Purisimo and his brother (the two
It is contended that plaintiff has not proved that he has suffered any substituted the both deceased Buycos couple) for establishment of a permanent
estimable pecuniary damage by reason of defendant's breach of the right of way on a private road closed, preventing access to the highway for his
contract, and that for that reason his action must fail. It is further poultry farm, with preliminary injunction. The court grants the injunction but
contended that in no event is it proper to enforce such a contract as this by subsequently dismisses the case for absence of requisites for the establishment of an
injunction, because it has not been alleged and proved that the continuance easement. Pending appeal, Baraquia, through a motion, prays for Purisimo and his
of the acts complained of will cause plaintiff "irreparable damage." bro to be held in contempt due to violating the preliminary injunction. Baraquia
The admitted fact that the plaintiff has failed to establish proof of pecuniary claimed that the violation on march 1 2007 occurred before Purisimo received a
damage by reason of the breach of contract by the acts committed prior to copy of the decision dismissing the case on March 13 2007 and that the case was not
the issuance of the preliminary injunction is a bar for money judgment for yet final and executory. RTC held them in contempt but on MR set it aside claiming
damages for the breach of contract, but it will not justify the Court in that contempt cannot be granted on a mere motion. ADDITIONALLY, RTC claimed
permitting defendant to continue to break his contract over plaintiffs that the lifetime of a preliminary injunction may continue even pending appeal. SC -
objection. The injury is a continuous one. The present case having been heard and dismissed, the writ of preliminary
The fact that the court may not be able to give damages for that part of the injunction is deemed lifted, its purpose as a provisional remedy having been served,
breach of the contract which had already taken place when its aid was the appeal therefrom notwithstanding. Unionbank v. CA - "x x x a dismissal,
invoked is no reason why it should countenance a continuance for such discontinuance or non-suit of an action in which a restraining order or temporary
disregard of plaintiffs rights. injunction has been granted operates as a dissolution of the restraining order or
Any continuing breach of a valid negative covenant is irreparable by the temporary injunction," regardless of whether the period for filing an MR or appeal
ordinary process of courts of law. By irreparable injury is not meant therefrom has expired. The rationale therefor is that even in cases where an appeal
such injury as is beyond the possibility of repair or compensation in is taken from a judgment dismissing an action on the merits, the appeal does not
damages, or great injury or great damage, but that kind of injury, suspend the judgment, hence the general rule applies that a temporary injunction
whether great or small, that ought not to be inflicted, of such constant terminates automatically on the dismissal of the action."
and frequent recurrence that no fair or reasonable redress can be had
therefore in a court of law. Facts:
The injury done the business of a merchant by illegal or unfair competition
is exceedingly difficult to measure. A diminution of the volume of a 1. Nelson Baraquia (respondent) filed before RTC Iloilo City a complaint
business may be due to so many different causes that it is often impossible against Dominico Buyco and Clemente Buyco (Buycos), for the

AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 21

establishment of a permanent right of way, injunction and damages with 1. A writ of preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an
preliminary injunction and TRO, to enjoin the Buycos from closing off a action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a party
private road within their property which he has been using to go to and or a court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts.
from the public highway to access his poultry farm. 2. The writ is provisional because it constitutes a temporary measure availed
2. The Buycos died during the pendency of the case, and were substituted by of during the pendency of the action and it is ancillary because it is a mere
Purisimo Buyco (petitioner) and his brother Gonzalo. (doesnt say how they incident in and is dependent upon the result of the main action.
are related) 3. It is well-settled that the sole object of a preliminary injunction, whether
3. Iloilo RTC granted Baraquias application for preliminary injunction. prohibitory or mandatory, is to preserve the status quo until the merits of
4. Feb 14, 2007, the trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to establish the case can be heard. It is usually granted when it is made to appear that
the requisites for the establishment of an easement of right of way under there is a substantial controversy between the parties and one of them is
Articles 649 and 650 of CC. It accordingly lifted the writ of preliminary committing an act or threatening the immediate commission of an act that
injunction. will cause irreparable injury or destroy the status quo of the controversy
5. Baraquia appealed. Purisimo also appealed the non-award of damages. before a full hearing can be had on the merits of the case.
6. Baraquia later filed with the trial court a motion to cite Purisimo and his 4. Indubitably, in the case at bar, the writ of preliminary injunction was
brother Gonzalo in contempt, for they closed off the subject road, thus granted by the lower court upon Baraquias showing that he and his
violating the writ of preliminary injunction on March 1 2007. The trial poultry business would be injured by the closure of the subject road. After
court, by Resolution of March 13, 2007,4 noting that Purisimo received on trial, however, the lower court found that respondent was not entitled to
March 5, 2007 his copy of its decision (Baraquia received his copy on the easement of right of way prayed for, hence, the writ was lifted.1avvphi1
February 21, 2007), and held that the February 14, 2007 decision had not 5. The present case having been heard and found dismissible as it was in fact
yet become final and executory, hence, the writ of preliminary injunction dismissed, the writ of preliminary injunction is deemed lifted, its purpose
remained to be valid, rendering petitioners act of closing the road an as a provisional remedy having been served, the appeal therefrom
indirect contempt of court. notwithstanding.
7. MR trial court sets it aside by ruling that Purisimo and his brother cant be 6. Unionbank v. Court of Appeals - "x x x a dismissal, discontinuance or non-
held in contempt by mere motion and not a verified petition. On the suit of an action in which a restraining order or temporary injunction has
lifetime of the writ of preliminary injunction, the trial court held that it is been granted operates as a dissolution of the restraining order or
its "illumined opinion that the matter of whether a writ of preliminary temporary injunction," regardless of whether the period for filing an MR or
injunction remains valid until the decision annulling the same attains appeal therefrom has expired. The rationale therefor is that even in cases
finality is not firmly entrenched in jurisprudence, contrary to the where an appeal is taken from a judgment dismissing an action on the
position of the defendants." It thereupon quoted a portion of the ruling in merits, the appeal does not suspend the judgment, hence the general rule
the 2006 case of Lee v. CA: applies that a temporary injunction terminates automatically on the
a. the fact remains that the Decision of the CA annulling the grant of dismissal of the action."
preliminary injunction in favor of petitioners has not yet become 7. The lower courts citation of Lee v. CA is misplaced. In Lee, unlike in the
final on 14 December 2000. xxx The preliminary injunction, present case, the original complaint for specific performance and
therefore, issued by the trial court remains valid until the Decision cancellation of real estate mortgage was not yet decided on the merits by
of the Court of Appeals annulling the same attains finality, and the lower court. Thus, the preliminary injunction therein issued subsisted
violation thereof constitutes indirect contempt which, however, pending appeal of an incident.
requires either a formal charge or a verified petition. 8. There being no indication that the appellate court issued an injunction in
(underscoring in the original decision) respondents favor, the writ of preliminary injunction issued on December
1, 1999 by the trial court was automatically dissolved upon the dismissal of
Issue: w/n the lifting of a writ of preliminary injunction due to the dismissal of the Civil Case No. 26015.
complaint is immediately executory, even if the dismissal of the complaint is
pending appeal. YES WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolution dated April 18, 2007 of the
trial court is REVERSED. The writ of preliminary injunction which Branch 39 of the

AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 22

Iloilo Regional Trial Court issued on December 1, 1999 was automatically dissolved contract. Video Post also filed a Motion for the Issuance of a TRO and
upon its dismissal by Decision of February 14, 2007 of Civil Case No. 26015. Preliminary Injunction to enjoin Plana and Ticzon from working with Omni
as video editors.
2. TICZON vs. VIDEO POST MANILA 3. RTC granted: The employment contract involved is reasonable and,
Petitioner: Paul Hendrik P. Ticzon, Michael Thomas S. Plana, and Omni Post therefore, valid. It appears that the effectivity of Clause 5 is limited in
Respondent: Video Post Manila, Inc. duration in that it prohibits an employee only during his employment and
Date: June 15, 2000 for only 2 years thereafter. Moreover, it does not prohibit an employee
from engaging in any kind of employment or business after his tenure.
Doctrine: A preliminary injunction in an action to enforce a contract, which 4. A contempt case was also filed by Video Post against Ticzon and Plan for
prohibits an employee from working in a competing enterprise within 2 years from violating the preliminary injunction. It alleged that they continued to work
resignation, has the same lifetime as the prohibition 2 years. Therefore, upon for Omni despite the writ.
expiration of the said period, a suit questioning the validity of the issuance of the 5. In denying the Petition before it, the CA declared that the questions raised
writ becomes functus oficio and therefore moot. were rendered moot by the expiration of the period prohibiting petitioners
from seeking employment under Clause 5: There is no longer any rhyme of
Summary: Video Post hired Plana and Ticzon as video editor and computer graphic reason for this court to decide on whether the respondent judge was in
artist. Both of them signed an employment contract which had a clause prohibiting error or not in granting the questioned writ, for even with it, the petitioners
them from working in a business that was engaged in a similar business or might are now released from any and all legal impediments which may have
compete with Video Post. The prohibition would last for 2 years from termination of barred their unfettered employment with whatsoever company they so
employment. In 1995, both resigned and in 1996, both were hired by Omni Post, wish to become employed, and to exercise whatever skill, industry,
which prompted Video Post to file a Complaint for Damaging alleging breach of expertise or talent they may have acquired, from wherever they may have
contract with a Motion for Issuance of a TRO and Preliminary Injunction. RTC acquired it.
granted. A contempt case for violation of the Injunction was filed alleging that they
continued to work for Omni Post. CA denied saying it was Moot and Academic. I: CA Issue:
erred? NO H: The question regarding the issuance of the Writ of Preliminary 1. WoN the issue of the validity of the preliminary injunction is moot and
Injunction was rendered moot by the expiration of the prohibition contained in academic - YES
Clause 5 of the employment contracts. The period within which the Ticzon and 2. WoN the trial and the appellate courts prejudged the case - NO
Plana were prohibited from engaging in or working for an enterprise that competed
with Video Post the very purpose of the preliminary injunction had expired. Held: WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED, and the appealed Decision AFFIRMED
Having outlived its purpose, it had already become functus oficio. This period began but we emphasize that the TC must conduct further trial on the merits in the main
in Nov. 1995 and ended Nov. 1997. case.

Facts: YES, MOOT


1. Video Post Manila, Inc. purchased a computerized editing equipment 1. Petitioners contention is based on the notion that the CA had prejudged
referred to as Henry. which was to be used for editing and post- the case before it was heard on the merits. However, it is clear from the
production. Michael Thomas Plana and Paul Hendrik Ticzon were hired by ruling of the CA that what was declared moot and academic was the issue of
Video Post as video editor and computer graphic artist. Both of them signed whether the TC had erred in granting the Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
an employment contract with a common clause (Clause 5) prohibiting Hence, the CA held that there was no longer any reason to decide whether
them, within 2 years from the termination of their employment, from the judge erred in issuing the Writ. It was that question, not the entire case,
working in a business firm or corporation that was engaged in a similar that its Decision declared moot.
business or that might compete with Video Post. a. The question regarding the issuance of the Writ of Preliminary
2. In 1995, both resigned and in 1996, both applied for employment with Injunction was rendered moot by the expiration of the prohibition
Omni Post, which hired them. So Video Post instituted a Complaint for contained in Clause 5 of the employment contracts.
Damages alleging that Plana and Ticzon had committed a breach of their 2. The period within which the Ticzon and Plana were prohibited from
engaging in or working for an enterprise that competed with Video Post
AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 23

the very purpose of the preliminary injunction had expired. Having Villanueva was an elected member of the Board of Directors of Agusan del Norte
outlived its purpose, it had already become functus oficio. This period Electric Cooperative (ANECO). While serving in the Board of ANECO, he was elected
began in Nov. 1995 and ended Nov. 1997. Even if we say that the injunction as Barangay Chairman of Brgy 12, Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte. He was also
was valid, it would be in vain, as Ticzon and Plana are now free to seek elected as President of the Liga ng mga Barangay of Cabadbaran, and as virtue of
employment wherever they want to. that presidency, he sat as ex-officio member of the Sangguniang Barangay of
3. Therefore, we hold that there is no actual case or controversy between the Cabadbaran.
parties insofar as the preliminary injunction is concerned.
4. Contempt: Such contempt case may proceed independently. The General Manager of ANECO then sought the opinion of petitioner NEA, as to w/n
5. Damages: The main issue of damages being sought by Video Post should be Villanueva is still qualified to sit in the ANECO Board, to which NEA answered no, he
taken up during the trial on the merits when the allegation of the parties may not. Villanueva then sought the opinion of DILG, which said that it has no
may properly be addressed. A remand of this case is necessary. jurisdiction to give such opinion.

NO PREJUDGMENT HERE (you dont need this) Villanueva then filed a review of the opinion of NEA, but NEA did not reconsider.
1. We find no basis for petitioners claim that the CA prejudged the entire case Villanueva then filed a petition for certiorari, with a prayer for preliminary
when it applied Del Castillo v. Richmond. As far as it was concerned, the case injunction, against ANECO and NEA. The RTC issued a TRO, enjoining ANECO and
was already moot. It referred to Del Castillo only to affirm the TCs NEA from disqualifying Villanueva as a member of the ANECO Board, and granting
preliminary finding that Clause 5 was valid and could thus be the basis for him of all the benefits of being a Board Member. Thereafter, a writ of preliminary
the issuance of the Writ. injunction was issued.
2. In the same vein, we find no prejudgment on the part of the TC. What is
abundantly clear is the provisional nature of its finding on the validity of Non-provrem-related issue/Held: W/N Villanueva can sit as a member of the
Clause 5 which, it clarified, was for purposes of the resolution of the BoDNo, not anymore.
application for preliminary injunction.
Provrem-related issue/Held: W/N a writ of TRO was validly issuedBoth yes and
no! Lol. See ratio for the reason
3. NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMIN vs. VILLANUEVA
GR 128203 Ratio
March 9, 2010 First, Villanueva should have exhausted all administrative remedies
first [not really important for class]
Petitioner: National Electrification Administration (NEA) o The order of NEA should have been appealed first to the Office of
Respondent: Val L. Villanueva the President, as it exercises the power of supervision over it
o Considering that the President has the power to review on appeal
Recit-ready the orders or acts of petitioner NEA, the failure of respondent to
Villanueva was appointed as President of the Liga ng mga Barangay while serving as undertake such an appeal bars him from resorting to a judicial
a member of the Board of Directors of ANECO. NEA said that Villanueva is no longer suit.
qualified to serve the Board. Thus, Villanueva filed a case for injunction to enjoin o Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies,
NEA and ANECO from dismissing him. SC said that since NEAs guidelines provides recourse through court action cannot prosper until after all such
that once elected as President of the Liga, the electric cooperative official should be administrative remedies have first been exhausted.
deemed automatically resigned, then Villanueva can no longer claim his position. As If remedy is available within the administrative
to the issue on injunction, the TRO issued by the RTC was challenged as it remained machinery, this should be resorted to before recourse can
effective for more than 20 days. The SC said that the TRO is valid for the first 20 be made to courts.
days, but was subsequently invalidated after the 20th day. The party with an administrative remedy must not only
initiate the prescribed administrative procedure to
Facts obtain relief but also pursue it to its appropriate
conclusion before seeking judicial intervention in order
AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 24

to give the administrative agency an opportunity to 4. YAP vs. INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK
decide the matter itself correctly and prevent GR No 175145 | Mar 28, 2008 | Chico-Nazario
unnecessary and premature resort to the court. Petitioners: Spouses Alfredo and Shirley Yap
o The non-observance of the doctrine of exhaustion of Respondents: International Exchange Bank, Sheriff Renato Flora and/or Office of
administrative remedies results in lack of cause of action, which is the Clerk of Court, RTC Makati City
one of the grounds in the Rules of Court justifying the dismissal of
the complaint. Summary: The properties of Go were subject of an auction sale due the failure to
Villanueva can no longer be a member of the Board of Directors of pay his liability with iBank. Spouses Yap filed for annulment of the sale and prayed
ANECO for the issuance of a WPI against the respondents. An order was issued granting the
o According to the Guidelines in the Conduct of Electric Cooperative application of the WPI. This was case was elevated to the CA and the SC and both
District Elections issued by NEA, those who hold elective offices in courts ruled that the Judge acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or,
the government, or appointed to an elective position above the otherwise, in grave abuse of discretion in issuing the said order. Notwithstanding
level of a Brgy Captain may not be a member of the Board of this, iBank and Sheriff Flora filed with the RTC Pasig City an Omnibus Motion (To
Directors of an electric cooperative Resolve Motion to Dismiss Complaint and/or Dissolve Injunction) praying that their
o Also, in another Memo issued by NEA, all coop officials who have pending Motion for Reconsideration which seeks for the dismissal of the case be
taken oath as President of Liga ng mga Barangay shall be deemed resolved and/or the Writ of Preliminary Injunction previously issued be dissolved.
to have automatically resigned his post. With this Omnibus Motion, the trial court issued the Order recalling and dissolving
o Thus, in consonance with these, Villanueva can no longer serve in the Writ of Preliminary Injunction conditioned on the filing of a P10M counter-bond.
the Board of Directors I: May the trial court recall and dissolve the preliminary injunction it issued despite
On the issue of the validity of the TRO the rulings of the CA and the SC that its issuance was not tainted with grave abuse of
o The TRO was issued by the RTC on December 2, 2003, but discretion? YES. R:
remained in effect until January 5, 2004. The trial court may still order the dissolution of the preliminary injunction it
o Under Section 5 of Rule 58 of the RoC, a TRO has a limited life of previously issued. The issuance of a preliminary injunction is different from its
only 20 days from the date of issue. dissolution. As long as the party seeking the dissolution of the preliminary
If before the expiration of the 20-day period the injunction can prove the presence of any of the grounds for its dissolution, same
application for preliminary injunction is denied, the TRO may be dissolved notwithstanding that this Court previously ruled that its issuance
would be deemed automatically vacated. was not tainted with grave abuse of discretion. 2 conditions must concur: first, the
If no action is taken by the judge on the application for court in the exercise of its discretion, finds that the continuance of the injunction
preliminary injunction within the said 20 days, the TRO would cause great damage to the defendant, while the plaintiff can be fully
would automatically expire on the 20th day by the sheer compensated for such damages as he may suffer; second, the defendant files a
force of law, no judicial declaration to that effect being counter-bond. The Order of the trial court is based on this ground. The well-known
necessary and the courts having no discretion to extend rule is that the matter of issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is addressed to
the same. the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, and its action shall not be disturbed
o The rule against the non-extendibility of the 20-day limited period on appeal unless it is demonstrated that it acted without jurisdiction or in excess of
of effectivity of a TRO is absolute if issued by an RTC jurisdiction or, otherwise, in grave abuse of discretion. By the same token, the court
Hence, the RTC committed error when it ruled that that issued such a preliminary relief may recall or dissolve the writ as the
the TRO it issued on December 2, 2003 was effective circumstances may warrant. We find no reason to disturb the same.
until January 5, 2004, a period way beyond 20 days.
This does not mean, however, that the entire TRO was invalidated. Facts:
o The same remained valid and in effect, but only within the 20-day International Exchange Bank (iBank) filed a collection suit with application
period, after which it automatically expired. for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against Alberto
Looyuko and Jimmy Go in the RTC Makati. The trial court rendered a
Decision in favor of iBank and found Alberto Looyuko and Jimmy T. Go
liable, ordering them to pay the amount of pesos P96M plus penalty.
AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 25

Writs of Execution on the judgment against Looyuko and Go were subject deeds of sale are nothing but spurious, if not falsified,
implemented. Sheriff Flora issued a Notice of Sheriffs Sale where documents. They add that the continuance of the Writ of Preliminary
properties allegedly owned by Go will be sold at public auction. Said public Injunction would cause them irreparable damage because it continues to
auction did not push through. incur damage not only for the nonpayment of the judgment award, but also
Spouses Yap filed a Complaint for Injunction with Prayer for TRO and/or for opportunity losses resulting from the continued denial of its right to
Preliminary Injunction with the RTC Pasig. They sought to stop the auction consolidate title over the levied properties.
sale alleging that the properties involved are already owned by them by
virtue of Deeds of Absolute Sale executed by Go in their favor. Issue/Held: May the trial court recall and dissolve the preliminary injunction it
A second Notice of Sheriffs Sale was issued by Sheriff Flora scheduling a issued despite the rulings of the CA and the SC that its issuance was not tainted with
public auction for the afore-mentioned properties. The public auction did grave abuse of discretion? YES.
not happen anew. Thereafter, a third Notice of Sheriffs Sale was
issued. Ratio:
RTC: Denied petitioners application for a writ of preliminary injunction. As
scheduled, the public auction took place for which the Sheriff issued a At the outset, it must be said that the Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued
Certificate of Sale in favor of iBank, subject to the third-party claims of by the trial court has not yet been actually dissolved because respondents
petitioners. have not posted the required counter-bond in the amount of P10M. The
Spouses Yap filed with the RTC of Pasig City the instant case for Annulment dissolution thereof is primed on the filing of the counter-bond.
of Sheriffs Auction Sale Proceedings and Certificate of Sale with a prayer The trial court may still order the dissolution of the preliminary injunction
for issuance of TRO and/or WPI against iBank, the Clerk of Court and Ex- it previously issued. The issuance of a preliminary injunction is different
Officio Sheriff of RTC Makati City, and Sheriff Flora. from its dissolution. Its issuance is governed by Sec 3, Rule 58 while the
o An Order was issued by Judge Janolo granting the Spouses grounds for its dissolution are contained in Sec 6. As long as the party
application for issuance of a WPI. Thus defendants and their seeking the dissolution of the preliminary injunction can prove the
representatives are enjoined from proceeding further with the presence of any of the grounds for its dissolution, same may be dissolved
execution, including consolidating title and taking possession. notwithstanding that this Court previously ruled that its issuance was not
Upon posting a P3M bond, Judge Janolo issued the WPI. tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
An Entry of Judgment was issued by the Supreme Court certifying that the Under Sec 6, a preliminary injunction may be dissolved if it appears after
resolution dismissing the case had become final and executory. hearing that although the applicant is entitled to the injunction or
Subsequently, iBank and Sheriff Flora filed with the RTC Pasig City an restraining order, the issuance or continuance thereof, would cause
Omnibus Motion (To Resolve Motion to Dismiss Complaint and/or Dissolve irreparable damage to the party or person enjoined while the applicant can
Injunction) praying that their pending Motion for Reconsideration which be fully compensated for such damages as he may suffer, and the former
seeks for the dismissal of the case be resolved and/or the Writ of files a bond in an amount fixed by the court on condition that he will pay all
Preliminary Injunction previously issued be dissolved. With this Omnibus damages which the applicant may suffer by the denial or the dissolution of
Motion, the trial court issued the Order recalling and dissolving the Writ of the injunction or restraining order.
Preliminary Injunction conditioned on the filing of a P10M counter-bond. 2 conditions must concur: first, the court in the exercise of its discretion,
The Spouses Yap argue that the trial court abused its discretion when it finds that the continuance of the injunction would cause great damage
ordered the dissolution of the WPI, the propriety of its issuance having to the defendant, while the plaintiff can be fully compensated for such
been affirmed by both CA and the SC. There Order of the dissolution of said damages as he may suffer; second, the defendant files a counter-bond.
writ is a clear defiance of this Courts directive. The Order of the trial court is based on this ground.
Respondents, on the other hand, contend that the trial court has the The well-known rule is that the matter of issuance of a writ of preliminary
authority and prerogative to set aside the Writ of Preliminary injunction is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court,
Injunction. They add that since petitioners Deed of Sale was not duly and its action shall not be disturbed on appeal unless it is demonstrated
notarized, the latters application for preliminary injunction is devoid of that it acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or, otherwise,
factual and legal bases. They assert that, not being public documents, the in grave abuse of discretion. By the same token, the court that issued such

AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 26

a preliminary relief may recall or dissolve the writ as the circumstances PPA is a government agency charged with the management and control of
may warrant. We find no reason to disturb the same. all Philippine ports. It is primarily tasked to carry out an integrated
Upon the posting by respondents of the counter-bond required, the trial program for the planning, development, financing, and operation of ports
court is directed to issue the Writ Dissolving Preliminary Injunction. throughout the country.
The PPA, through its Pre-Qualification, Bids, and Awards Committee
(PBAC) accepted bids for a ten-year contract for cargo handling services at
5. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY vs. NASIPIT INTEGRATED the Port of Nasipit. NIASSI was declared as the winning bidder. A Notice of
G.R. No. 174136, December 23, 2008 Award of the cargo handling contract was sent by fax to NIASSI.
o It expressly stated that: (1) A ten-year cargo handling contract is
Petitioners: PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY, represented by OSCAR SEVILLA, awarded to NIASSI in accordance with the terms and proposals
General Manager, BENJAMIN CECILIO, Assistant General Manager and SISALI ARAP, contained in its bid; (2) NIASSI must enter into and execute the
Port Manager formal contract with PPA after its compliance to the documentary
Respondents: NASIPIT INTEGRATED ARRASTRE AND STEVEDORING SERVICES, requirements.
INC., represented The contract was never executed. Instead, PPA issued several hold-over
permits to enable NIASSI to legally operate its cargo handling services at
Summary: The PPA, through its Pre-Qualification, Bids, and Awards Committee the Nasipit port. The last of the hold-over permits was issued on October
(PBAC) accepted bids for a ten-year contract for cargo handling services at the Port 13, 2004, which was set to expire on April 13, 2004, or six months after its
of Nasipit. NIASSI was declared as the winning bidder. However, the contract was issuance.
never executed. NIASSI filed a petition for injunction with prayer for writ of o Yet, barely two months after, PPA revoked the hold-over authority
preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order against PPA. It later entrusted to NIASSI. Through a letter, PPA informed the
amended its petition to mandamus with prayer for the writ of preliminary stevedoring company that it would take over the management and
mandatory injunction and/or temporary restraining order. The RTC granted the operations of the cargo handling services at the port of Nasipit
petition then surprisingly dissolved the injunction. The CA decided in favor of starting December 10, 2006.
NIASSI and stated that RTC gravely abused its discretion when it dissolved the writ The PPA, through its Port Services-Special Take-over Unit, directly
of preliminary injunction. The SC agreed with the CA because as observed, the RTC undertook operations at the Nasipit Port. However, this composite group
failed to observe the procedural requirements when it dissolved the preliminary continued to utilize NIASSIs manpower and equipment.
mandatory injunction without the benefit of a hearing, because it is an indispensable At the onset of the PPA takeover, NIASSI filed a petition for injunction with
requirement. The respondent judge gravely abused his discretion when he dissolved prayer for writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order
the subject Writ without conducting a hearing to assess the prevailing against PPA. It later amended its petition to mandamus with prayer for the
circumstances and without requiring the respondents to file a counter-bond as writ of preliminary mandatory injunction and/or temporary restraining
required in Section 6 of Rule 58 of the ROC. order.
o The amended petition sought to compel PPA to execute or cause
NO man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission the final execution of the cargo handling contract with NIASSI. It
when we require him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked likewise prayed for the return of the management and operations
as a favor. Walang taong nasa ibabaw o nasa ilalim ng batas; hindi hinihiling ang of the cargo handling services at the Nasipit port to NIASSI.
pahintulot ninuman upang sundin ito. Ang pagsunod sa batas ay hinihingi bilang
isang karapatan, hindi isang pakiusap. RTC Dispositions
The RTC issued a resolution granting the petition. It recognized the need to
Facts protect NIASSIs right to continued cargo handling operations.
NIASSI is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under o The RTC held that the continued takeover of PPA would work
Philippine laws with office address at Talisay, Nasipit, Agusan del Norte. It injustice and cause irreparable damage to NIASSI. To serve the
has been operating in the stevedoring business for at least 15 years. better ends of justice, the court declared that the state of affairs be
maintained prior to the takeover until the main action is resolved.

AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 27

However, surprisingly, on April 11, 2005, the RTC issued the assailed Although a MR has often been considered a condition precedent for
resolution which, inter alia, dissolved the writ of preliminary injunction it granting the writ of certiorari, this rule finds exception in this case where
earlier granted NIASSI. execution has been ordered and the need for relief is urgent. Otherwise, MR
o In dissolving the writ, the trial court held that the State has the of the contested order would have served no purpose.
power to revoke the temporary permits issued to arrastre and In Gonzales, Jr. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, this Court said:
stevedoring operators whenever there is a need to promote the o As a general rule, certiorari will not lie, unless an inferior court
public interest and the welfare of the stevedoring industry. has, through a motion for reconsideration, a chance to correct the
Whatever right a private operator may have acquired on the basis errors imputed to him. This, however, admits exceptions, namely:
of the temporary permit issued to it shall yield to the States valid (1) when the issue raised is one purely of law; (2) where public
exercise of police power. interest is involved; and (3) in case of urgency.
Too, the RTC failed to observe the procedural requirements when it
CA Dispositions dissolved the preliminary mandatory injunction without the benefit
NIASSI filed a petition for certiorari with the CA under Rule 65 of the of a hearing.
Revised Rules of Court.It alleged that the RTC gravely abused its discretion o xxx It may further be denied, or, if granted, may be dissolved, if it
when it dissolved the writ of preliminary injunction it earlier issued and appears after hearing that although the applicant is entitled to the
did so without the benefit of a hearing. It also pointed out that the second injunction or restraining order, the issuance or continuance
resolution contained orders that were immediately executory which was thereof, as the case may be, would cause irreparable damage to
contrary to law and prejudicial to its interests. the party or person enjoined while the applicant can be fully
The CA decided in favor of NIASSI by granting the Writ of Preliminary compensated for such damages as he may suffer, and the former
Mandatory Injunction. files a bond in an amount fixed by the court conditioned that he
will pay all damages which the applicant may suffer by the denial
Issue: Whether or not IN ORDERING THE RESTORATION OF THE WRIT OF or the dissolution of the injunction or restraining order. If it
PRELIMINARY MANDATORY INJUNCTION ISSUED BY THE TRIAL COURT, THE CA appears that the extent of the preliminary injunction or
ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND/OR IN EXCESS OF ITS restraining order granted is too great, it may be modified. (Sec 6,
JURISDICTION. NO Rule 58, ROC)
The provision is clear. A hearing is indispensable before an injunction
Ratio: or restraining order may be dissolved. It is during the hearing that a
PPA avers that the failure of NIASSI to file the necessary motion for determination may be made whether or not the continuance of an
reconsideration before it could resort to the remedy of certiorari is injunction would cause irreparable damage to the party or person enjoined.
fatal. This contention is flawed. The CA took note of the procedural lapses committed by respondent judge
o This Court held that there are notable exceptions to the general when he granted the respondents MR.
rule that a motion for reconsideration must first be filed before o The respondent judge did not require the filing of respondents
resort to certiorari can be availed of. This rule has been applied in affidavit nor allow petitioner to submit a counter-affidavit
a plethora of cases. A motion for reconsideration is no longer opposing the dissolution of the writ in question.
necessary when other special circumstances warrant immediate o Likewise, no hearing was conducted to enable the respondent
and more direct action. judge to determine whether the continuance of the writ of
The RTC issued the questioned resolution containing orders that were self- injunction may cause irreparable damage to the respondent. And
executory and harshly prejudicial to NIASSIs interests. NIASSI stands to while it may conceded that the court a quo set the hearing on
lose valuable revenue and investment upon execution of the orders respondents motion for reconsideration on 01 April 2005, the
preventing it from engaging in stevedoring operations at the Nasipit same was reset to 06 April 2005 for the purpose of receiving
port. This is true most especially after it has already received a notice of evidence on the new allegations that respondent failed to present
award and has started complying with the additional documentation at the hearing on the application for injunction. We have gone
requirements given by PPA. over the minutes of the proceedings held before the court a quo

AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 28

but there is nothing in the records to show that a hearing was ever GR No. 164459 | April 24, 2007
conducted on 06 April 2005 or at anytime thereafter to determine Petitioners: Limitless Potentials, Inc.
the grounds for nullification of the order granting the writ Respondents: CA, Crisostomo Yalung, and Atty. Roy Manuel Villasor
application and the propriety of dissolving the writ previously
issued by the court a quo. Such fatal omission notwithstanding, Summary: The respondents filed a petition for certiorari with application of a writ
the respondent judge gratuitously issued the resolution granting of preliminary injunction, to restrain MeTC from hearing the third party complaint
the motion for reconsideration that resulted in the dissolution of of Limitless due to a contractual dispute. The writ was issued against the MeTC of
the mandatory injunction. Makati,. However, the writ was subsequently dissolved. Feeling aggrieved, Limitless
The respondent judge gravely abused his discretion when he filed a motion for judgment against the bond (note that before the writ is issued, the
dissolved the subject Writ without conducting a hearing to assess the applicant must post a bond), to satisfy the damages it incurred because of the
prevailing circumstances and without requiring the respondents to issuance of the writ. It alleged that attorneys fees, costs of litigation, and damages,
file a counter-bond as required in Section 6 of Rule 58 of the Rules of are covered by the bond. It also alleged that malice and bad faith is not a necessary
Civil Procedure. element of the bond. On this part, the court agreed with Limitless. All the
The records are bereft of any order which required PPA to submit an aforementioned fees are covered by the bond, bond as long as it can be shown that
affidavit in support of the injunction relief it sought. Neither was NIASSI said expenses were sustained by the party seeking recovery by reason of the writ.
given any chance to oppose the petition through a counter-affidavit. More Malice and bad faith on the part of the applicant (respondents in this case) are not
importantly, no hearing was conducted to determine whether the writ of needed to be proved for Limitless to recover from the bond. However, the court still
injunction earlier issued, indeed, caused irreparable damage to PPA. denied recovery in this case because Limitless was not able to show that it actually
The deprivation of NIASSIs right to due process taints the proceedings sustained damages by reason of the writ.
against it. The courts order which was immediately executory render the
matter as one of extreme urgency. The situation easily falls under one of Chico-Nazario, J.:
the recognized exceptions to the rule that a motion for reconsideration Facts
should first be availed of before filing a petition for certiorari. Digital Networks (Digital) and Limitless Potentials entered into a Billboard
Be that as it may, when the rules of procedure are rigid and strict in Advertisement Contract. Limitless was to construct one billboard ad for
application, resulting in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than Digitals products for one year.
promote justice, the Court is empowered to suspend them. o Terms: 60k per month rental fee, total of three months advanced
It would be in the interest of justice to reinstate the preliminary mandatory deposit upon signing and upon completion.
injunction the RTC has earlier issued in favor of NIASSI. The stevedoring However, the billboard was destroyed by unknown persons. Hence, the
company has proven that it stands to suffer irreparable injury with PPAs contract was considered terminated.
continued use of its facilities and takeover of the port. Even though PPA is Digital sought for the recovery if its two months advanced deposit (120k).
a governmental arm, it does not stand above the law in the guise of Limitless does not want to return the money, alleging that the loss was due
protecting the public interest. to a force majeure and that any cause of action must be directed to the
It should also be noted that an arrastre contract is not an ordinary persons responsible.
agreement involving merely parties therein, as it affects the public in Because of this, Digital commenced a suit before MeTC of Makati 3 praying
general. In all contracts, the law must protect all parties in securing fair for a return of the deposit. It was docketed as CivCase No. 55170.
play and equity to prevail. Consistent with its defense, Limitless commenced a Third-Party Complaint
against Macgraphics Carranz International Co. and herein private
Held: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the appealed Decision of the Court respondents Bishop Yalung and Villasor.
of Appeals is AFFIRMED. o It alleged that it entered into a contract of lease with Roman
Catholic Archbishop of Manila (RCAM) represented by Yalung and
RECOVERY ON INJUNCTION BOND Villasor.

1. LIMITLESS POTENTIALS, INC. vs. CA 3 Presided by Judge Estela Perlas-Bernabe


AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 29

o The subject of such contract is over a space in Guadalupe Viejo, Malice or lack of good faith is NOT an element of recovery on the bond.
Makati City, over which the said billboard was erected. The dissolution of the injunction, even if the injunction was obtained in
o Petitioner averred that private respondents maliciously good faith, amounts to a determination that the injunction was wrongfully
dismantled and destroyed the subject billboard and prevented its obtained and a right of action on the injunction immediately accrues.
men from reconstructing it.
o Thereafter, petitioner learned that Macgraphics had "cajoled and Respondents Contentions
induced" RCAM, through the private respondents, to destroy the Petitioner is not entitled to collect damages on the injunction bond, because
subject billboard to enable Macgraphics to erect its own billboard the preliminary injunction was directed not against the petitioner, but
and advertising signs. against the MeTC. Petitioner was not restrained from doing any act. What
Private respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss, but was denied. was restrained was the hearing of the Third Party Complaint, in order to
They then filed a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for Preliminary preserve the status quo and not to render the issue therein moot and
Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction before the academic.
RTC of Makati assailing the dismissal of the MtD. The fact that the decision is favorable to the party against whom the
RTC Makati granted the writ, upon posting of P10k bond. Hence, MeTC was injunction was issued does not automatically entitle the latter to recover
enjoined from hearing the Third Party Complaint (filed by Limitless) in damages on the bond.
CivCase 55170. They also argued that it was petitioner who was benefited by such writ of
However, the RTC dismissed the Petition for Certiorari. The Writ of preliminary injunction, because the injunction left Digital unable to
Preliminary Injunction was also DISSOLVED. prosecute Civil Case No. 55170 against herein petitioner.
Because the writ was dissolved, Limitless then filed a Motion for Judgment
against the Bond and in compliance with the directive of the RTC, the SCs Ruling
petitioner filed a pleading specifying its claims: (a) attorneys fees in the GENERAL BACKGROUND ON PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.
sum of P74, 375.00; and (b) moral damages for the tarnished good will in A preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy that a party may resort to
the sum of P1,000,000.00. in order to preserve and protect certain rights and interests during the
RTC DENIED. Writ was not wrongfully obtained. pendency of an action.
CA again ruled against Limitless, hence this petition. It is an order granted at any stage of an action, prior to the judgment or
final order, requiring a party, court, agency or person to perform or to
Issue/Held: refrain from performing a particular act or acts.
MAIN ISSUE: Whether or not Limitless may claim against the Injunction Bond NO A preliminary injunction is merely temporary, subject to the final
Breakdown of this main issue: disposition of the principal action.
o WON petitioner may recover damages from the bond YES, It is issued to preserve the status quo ante, which is the last actual,
BUT peaceful, and uncontested status that preceded the actual controversy, in
o WON petitioner was able to substantiate the damages NO!! order to protect the rights of the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. It
should not establish new relations between the parties, but merely
maintain or re-establish the pre-existing relationship between them.
Note: Sub-issues that sir might ask during recit (This will be answered as we go o The status quo should be existing ante litem motam, or at the time
through the ratio) of the filing of the case.
Is malice or bad faith a condition sine qua non for liability to attach on the To be entitled to an injunctive writ, the petitioner has the burden to
injunction bond? NO establish the following requisites:
Are attorneys fees, litigation costs, and cost of delay by reason of the o a right in esse or a clear and unmistakable right to be protected
injunction covered by the injunction bond? YES o a violation of that right
o that there is an urgent and permanent act and urgent necessity for
Ratio the writ to prevent serious damage.
Petitioners Contentions

AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 30

THE BOND injunction, to prove malice or lack of good faith in the issuance thereof
It is to be noted that the posting of a bond is a condition sine qua non for before he can recover damages against the injunction bond.
the writ to be issued. o Aquino vs. Socorro - To require malice as a prerequisite would
o It is intended as a security for damages in case it is finally decided make the filing of a bond a useless formality. The dissolution of the
that the injunction ought not to have been granted. Its principal injunction, even if the injunction was obtained in good faith,
purpose is to protect the enjoined party against loss or damage by amounts to a determination that the injunction was wrongfully
reason of the injunction, and the bond is usually conditioned obtained and a right of action on the injunction bond immediately
accordingly. accrues. Thus, for the purpose of recovery upon the injunction
o The damages sustained may be recovered from the injunction bond, the dissolution of the injunction because of petitioners main
bond. cause of action provides the actionable wrong for the purpose of
o The following provision is relevant with regard to the recovery of recovery upon the bond.
such bond:
SEC. 20, Rule 57, 1997 CivPro. Claim for damages on COVERAGE OF THE INJUNCTION BOND
account of improper, irregular or excessive attachment. - The rules clearly provide that the injunction bond is answerable for all
An application for damages on account of improper, damages.
irregular or excessive attachment must be filed before the The bond insures with all practicable certainty that the defendant may
trial or before appeal is perfected or before the judgment sustain no ultimate loss in the event that the injunction could finally be
becomes executory, with due notice to the attaching party dissolved. Consequently, the bond may obligate the bondsmen to account
and his surety or sureties, setting forth the facts showing to the defendant in the injunction suit for all damages, or costs and
his right to damages and the amount thereof. Such reasonable counsels fees, incurred or sustained by the latter in case it is
damages may be awarded only after proper hearing and determined that the injunction was wrongfully issued.
shall be included in the judgment on the main case. Likewise, the posting of a bond in connection with a preliminary injunction
does not operate to relieve the party obtaining an injunction from any and
If the judgment of the appellate court be favorable to the all responsibility for damages that the writ may thereby cause. It merely
party against whom the attachment was issued, he must gives additional protection to the party against whom the injunction is
claim damages sustained during the pendency of the directed. It gives the latter a right of recourse against either the applicant
appeal by filing an application in the appellate court, with or his surety or against both.
notice to the party in whose favor the attachment was Hence, the contention of the petitioner in this issue is TENABLE. Attorneys
issued or his surety or sureties, before the judgment of the fees, litigation costs, and costs of delay can be recovered from the
appellate court becomes executory. The appellate court injunction bond as long as it can be shown that said expenses were
may allow the application to be heard and decided by the sustained by the party seeking recovery by reason of the writ of
trial court. preliminary injunction, which was later on determined as not to have been
validly issued and that the party who applied for the said writ was not
Nothing herein contained shall prevent the party against entitled thereto.
whom the attachment was issued from recovering in the
same action the damages awarded to him from any PROPER PARTY TO CLAIM: METC or LIMITLESS? LIMITLESS!
property of the attaching party not exempt from execution It is also erroneous for the appellate court to rule that petitioner is not
should the bond or deposit given by the latter be entitled to claim damages from the injunction bond simply because the
insufficient or fail to fully satisfy the award. preliminary injunction was directed against the MeTC and not against the
petitioner.
The MeTC does not stand to suffer damages from the injunction because it
MALICE OR BAD FAITH NOT NECESSARY FOR RECOVERY has no interest or stake in the Petition pending before it.
There is nothing from the aforequoted provision of law which requires an
enjoined party, who suffered damages by reason of the issuance of a writ of
AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 31

Damage or loss is suffered by the party whose right to pursue its case is granted. Caragaos then filed a petition for review on certiorari but said petition was
suspended or delayed, which in this case, is the petitioner. It is the subsequently denied in a resolution by the SC. Disregarding the restraining order,
petitioner who has the right to recover. Pedro Caragao sold to Raymundo Lucido the sugarcane planted by petitioners.
Apolinario Bataclan filed several criminal complaints against Castor Caragao et al.
LIMITLESS MAY HAVE STANDING TO CLAIM DAMAGES, BUT FAILED TO and some were charged with robbery, grave coercion and grave threats. Trial court
SUBSTANTIATE issued a writ of execution to restore possession of the land. Cagarao filed a certiorari
SC agreed in the findings of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the case with CA assailing the said writ of execution denied. Thus, another writ of
findings of the RTC, that the petitioner did not sustain any damage by execution was issued to enforce the decision of CA, by reason of which possession of
reason of the issuance of the writ of injunction. the land eventually reverted to petitioners. The trial court, therefore, gravely abused
In the case at bar, petitioner is claiming attorneys fees in the sum of its discretion in ordering the ejectment of respondents. A writ of preliminary
P74,375.00 it allegedly paid to defend itself in the main case for certiorari, injunction is primarily intended to maintain the status quo between the parties
which it would not have spent had the private respondents not filed their existing prior to the filing of the case. The status quo for respondents as tenants,
nuisance Petition and secured a writ of preliminary injunction. Likewise, by either as tillers, cultivators, or occupants, should consequently be maintained until
reason of the unfounded suit, the good will of the petitioner was brought to the issue on their status as such shall have been determined after trial.
bad light, hence, damaged.
The damages being claimed by the petitioner were not by reason of the Facts:
injunction but the litigation expenses it incurred in defending itself in the Petitioners are the registered co-owners of a parcel of land in Cavite.
main case for certiorari, which is definitely not within the coverage of the Private respondents are the occupants and cultivators of said land.
injunction bond. Pedro Caragao and his wife filed a case against the Bataclans in the RTC
o Thus, this Court is not convinced that the attorneys fees in the Tagaytay for the reconveyance or cancellation of title over the parcel of
amount of P74,375.00 as well as the moral damages for the land.
tarnished good will in the sum of P1,000,000.00 were suffered by A judgment by default was rendered by the trial court and a writ of
the petitioner because of the issuance of the writ of injunction. execution pending appeal was issued.
By virtue of said writ, the Caragao spouses were placed in possession of the
land. At that time, the land was planted to sugarcane crops which were
2. BATACLAN vs. CA G.R. No. 78148 July 31, 1989 already nine months old.
Petitioners filed in the CA a petition for certiorari with injunction to annul
the aforesaid judgment by default and the writ of execution issued pending
APOLINARIO BATACLAN, ELEAZAR BATACLAN, NAPOLEON BATACLAN,
appeal.
HERMINIA BATACLAN, MARTIN BIN, LORENZO LAGWAN, ROGELIO LAGWAN,
JOSILYN A. CORPOZ, ELIZABETH AGARIN, ESTRELLA AGARIN, EDITHA AGARIN, Take note: It has also been alleged that three of the respondents, namely,
and JIMMY CLARO vs. Teodoro Kapangyarihan, Bonifacio Saragoza and Abdon Capili, entered
COURT OF APPEALS, TEODORO KAPANGYARIHAN, BONIFACIO SARAGOZA, upon the land as tenants of Caragao.
REYNALDO VELLETA, FRANCISCO ANAHAW, NESTOR N. COTONER, BASILLO CA issued a restraining order and declared null and void the judgment by
ASTELLO, ABDON CAPILI, ERNESTO ACOSTA, FLORENTINO MEDINA and default rendered and the writ of execution issued pending appeal.
FRANCISCO SAYAMAN Caragaos then filed a petition for review on certiorari but said petition was
subsequently denied in a resolution by the SC.
Summary: Pedro Caragao (in disregard of the restraining order issued by the CA) sold
Pedro Caragao and his wife filed a case against the Bataclans in the RTC Tagaytay for to a certain Raymundo Lucido the sugarcane planted by petitioners and, by
the reconveyance or cancellation of title over the parcel of land. A judgment by virtue of said sale, respondents cut and took away the sugarcane without
default was rendered by the trial court and a writ of execution pending appeal was the knowledge and consent of petitioners.
issued. Caragao spouses were placed in possession of the land. Petitioners filed in Apolinario Bataclan filed several criminal complaints against Castor
the CA a petition for certiorari with injunction to annul the aforesaid judgment by Caragao and seven other persons for theft of sugarcane.
default and the writ of execution issued pending appeal which was subsequently
AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 32

The Dasmarias Integrated Police also charged Castor Caragao and several respective rights of the parties, with the caveat that extreme caution be
other persons, including some of the private respondents with robbery, observed in the exercise of such discretion.
grave coercion and grave threats. o Court should not just summarily issue an order of denial without
Trial court, upon motion of petitioners, issued a writ of execution to restore an adequate hearing and judicious evaluation of the merits of the
possession of the land to them. application.
Cagarao filed a certiorari case with CA assailing the said writ of execution. o A perfunctory and improvident action would be a denial of
Upon the denial of said petition, another writ of execution was issued to procedural due process and could result in irreparable prejudice
enforce the decision of CA, by reason of which possession of the land to a party.
eventually reverted to petitioners. In the case at bar, it is patent that petitioners did not intend to forthwith
Respondents filed a complaint for damages with injunction against oust respondents from the contested lot.
petitioners before RTC. o In their answer, petitioners merely sought to dismiss the
o Petitioners are the tenants, tillers, cultivators and occupants of a complaint and, by way of counterclaim, to recover damages.
parcel of land The trial court, therefore, gravely abused its discretion in ordering the
o Respondents helping one another, without authority and with use ejectment of respondents.
of armed men believed to be members of the INP, Dasmarias, o In effect, it disposed of the main case without the requisite hearing
Cavite, destroyed, uprooted, cut into pieces, plowed petitioners' on the evidence to be presented. The denial order is adjudication
plantations. on the merits of the case, in gross violation of the constitutional
o Respondents have no right and authority to destroy the mandate that a party shall have the right to be heard and to
plantations as CA sustained the execution order issued by RTC. present evidence.
Petitioners claimed that they went to the premises to clean the place after o A writ of preliminary injunction is primarily intended to maintain
the sheriff of the trial court restored to them the possession and denied the status quo between the parties existing prior to the filing of
that respondents are the tenants and they being mere workers of Pedro the case.
Caragao. o The status quo for private respondents as tenants, either as tillers,
Trial court issued a restraining order after which the case was heard on the cultivators, or occupants, should consequently be maintained until
prayer for preliminary injunction. Court a quo issued an order denying the the issue on their status as such shall have been determined after
prayer for preliminary injunction. trial.
On a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against said order, The trial court in denying the prayer for injunction held that respondents
CA rendered its challenged decision on the propriety of a writ of have no right to the possession of the subject lot primarily on the basis of
preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo until the status of private the resolution decided by the SC, which it opined was the proper forum to
respondents as alleged tenants shall have been determined in a hearing on define the tenancy rights of private respondents. unmeritorious
the merits of the case. o A mere perusal of the SC resolution shows that what was
determined was mainly the propriety of the acts and the
Issue/Held: jurisdiction of the provincial fiscal in the prosecution of
Whether or not the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is proper under the respondents for robbery, theft, grave coercion and grave threat,
factual situation obtaining in this case. - YES sans a determinative holding on respondents' rights as tenants.
SC:
A writ of preliminary injunction, as an ancillary or preventive remedy, may The contention of petitioners that the writ of possession issued against
only be resorted to by a litigant to protect or preserve his rights or Pedro Caragao covers respondents is untenable.
interests and for no other purpose during the pendency of the principal o Petitioners openly recognized whatever rights were vested in the
action. respondents when the former acknowledged in their motion for
In the issuance thereof, the courts are given sufficient discretion to reconsideration that the writ of execution sought by them would
determine the necessity for the grant of the relief prayed for as it affects the not in any way affect the latter's right to stay in the premises.

AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 33

The source of respondents' present possessory rights is no longer 2B.02, Sub-par 1, Letter (A), Par 2 of Ordinance No. T-1, Revenue Code of
Caragao's claim to the property but petitioners' express consent to such Cauayan, Isabela, which imposed a graduated tax on retailers, independent
continued occupation of the land until the former's rights shall have been wholesalers and distributors; and for the refund of P23,202.12, plus
threshed out and adjudicated in the proper forum. interest of 14 % per annum thereon, which Valley Trading had paid
pursuant to said ordinance. Valley Trading likewise prayed for the issuance
of a writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction to enjoin the collection of
3. VALLEY TRADING Co. vs. CFI said tax. Defendants in said case were Dr. Carlos A. Uy and Moises
G.R. No. L-49529 March 31, 1989 Balmaceda, who were sued in their capacity as Mayor and Municipal
Treasurer of Cauayan, Isabela, respectively, together with the Sangguniang
Bayan of the same town.
Petitioner: VALLEY TRADING CO., INC.
2. Valley Trading takes the position that said ordinance imposes a "graduated
fixed tax based on Sales" that "in effect imposes a sales tax in contravention
Respondent: CFI OF ISABELA, BRANCH II; DR. CARLOS UY (in his capacity as Mayor of the Local Tax Code which prohibits a municipality from imposing a
of Cauayan, Isabela); MOISES BALMACEDA (in his capacity as Municipal Treasurer percentage tax on sales.
of Cauayan, Isabela); and SANGGUNIANG BAYAN of Cauayan, Isabela 3. Respondents, on the other hand, claim in their answer that the tax is an
annual fixed business tax, not a percentage tax on sales, They cited the
Emergency: Valley Trading seek to annul a section of the Cauayan Isabela Revenue ruling of the Acting Secretary of Finance, upholding the validity of said tax
Code claiming that it imposes a percentage tax on sales which is prohibited under on the ground that the same is an annual graduated fixed tax imposed on
the Local Tax Code. The City claims that it is a annual fixed business tax whuch was the privilege to engage in business.
upheld by the Sec. of Finance. Along with the complaint was a prayer for preliminary 4. October 13, 1978, CFI Isabela issued an order terminating the pre-trial and
injunction. CFI Isabela denied the prayer for the writ stating that collection of taxes reset the hearing on the merits for failure of the parties to arrive at an
cant be enjoined. Valley Trading argue that a hearing is mandatory before an action amicable settlement. In the same order, the trial court also denied the
be taken on the issuance of the writ. SC On this particular case, no hearing is prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction on the ground that "the
needed. SC provided if the ground is the insufficiency of the complaint, the same is collection of taxes cannot be enjoined".
apparent from the complaint itself and preliminary injunction may be refused 5. Valley Trading moved for reconsideration, contending that a hearing is
outright, with or without notice to the adverse party. In fact, under said section, the mandatory before action may be taken on the motion for the issuance of a
court may also refuse an injunction on other grounds on the basis of affidavits. It writ of preliminary injunction, but the court below denied said motion.
would be different, of course, it there is a prima facie showing on the face of the 6. Valley trading supports its contention by invoking Sec. 7, Rule 58 which
motion and/or pleadings that the grant of preliminary injunction may be proper, in provides that "(a)fter hearing on the merits the court may grant or refuse,
which case notice to the opposing party would be necessary since the grant of such continue, modify or dissolve the injunction as justice may require." Valley
writ on an ex parte proceeding is now proscribed. It does not follow, however, that trading maintains that Section 6 of Rule 58 relied upon by respondents
such a hearing is indispensable where right at the outset the court is reasonably refers to the objections that might be interposed to the issuance of the writ
convinced that the writ will not lie. What was then discouraged, and is now or the justification for the dissolution of an injunction previously issued ex
specifically prohibited, is the issuance of the writ without notice and hearing. For parte, but that nowhere is it mentioned that a hearing is not necessary.
this particular case, the SC took into consideration the ruling of the Sec of finance,
the fact that the injury is not irreparable since Valley can just seek a refund, and Issue: w/n a hearing on the merits is necessary before a motion for a writ of
that taxes are the lifeblood of the govt. FYI, I just used Respondent since the SC preliminary injunction may be denied. NOT ALL THE TIME/SOMETIMES
referred to them as a city and not individually.
1. While it correctly pointed out that Section 6 of Rule 58 provides for the
Facts: grounds for objection to an injunction, Valley Trading ignores the
circumstances under which these objections may be appreciated by the
1. The records show that petitioner Valley Trading Co., Inc. filed a complaint trial court. Thus, if the ground is the insufficiency of the complaint, the
in the court a quo seeking a declaration of the supposed nullity of Section same is apparent from the complaint itself and preliminary injunction may

AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 34

be refused outright, with or without notice to the adverse party. In fact, preliminary injunction which, in effect, would dispose of the main case
under said section, the court may also refuse an injunction on other without trial. In the present case, it is evident that the only ground relied
grounds on the basis of affidavits. In the foregoing instances, a hearing is upon for injunction relief is the alleged patent nullity of the ordinance. If
not necessary. the court should issue the desired writ, premised on that sole justification
2. The reliance on Section 7 of Rule 58 is misplaced. This section merely therefor of Valley Trading, it would be a virtual acceptance of his claim that
specifies the actions that the court may take on the application for the writ the imposition is patently invalid or, at the very least, that the ordinance is
if there is a hearing on the merits; it does not declare that such hearing is of doubtful validity. There would, in effect, be a prejudgment of the main
mandatory or a prerequisite therefor. Otherwise, we may have a situation case and a reversal of the rule on the burden of proof.
where courts will be forced to conduct a hearing even if from a 8. Furthermore, such action will run counter to the well settled rule that laws
consideration of the pleadings alone it can readily be ascertained that the are presumed to be valid unless and until the courts declare the contrary in
movant is not entitled to the writ. In fine, it will be unnecessary waste of clear and unequivocal terms. A court should issue a writ of preliminary
judicial time. injunction only when the petitioner assailing a statute has made out a case
3. It would be different, of course, it there is a prima facie showing on the face of unconstitutionality or invalidity strong enough to overcome, in the mind
of the motion and/or pleadings that the grant of preliminary injunction of the judge, the presumption of validity, aside from a showing of a clear
may be proper, in which case notice to the opposing party would be legal right to the remedy sought. The case before Us, however, presents no
necessary since the grant of such writ on an ex parte proceeding is now features sufficient to overcome such presumption. This must have been
proscribed. A hearing should be conducted since, under such evident to the trial court from the answer of the respondents and the well
circumstances, only in case of extreme urgency will the writ issue prior to a reasoned ruling of the Acting Secretary of Finance.
final hearing. Such requirement for prior notice and hearing underscores
the necessity that a writ of preliminary injunction is to be dispensed with WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING this petition and
circumspection both sides should be heard whenever possible. It does not SUSTAINING the validity of the questioned orders of the trial court.
follow, however, that such a hearing is indispensable where right at the
outset the court is reasonably convinced that the writ will not lie. What was
then discouraged, and is now specifically prohibited, is the issuance of the CASES WHERE WPI IMPROPER
writ without notice and hearing.
4. Unlike the NIRC, the Local Tax Code does not contain any specific provision 1. ROLDAN vs. ARCA
prohibiting courts from enjoining the collection of local taxes. Such Petitioner: Hon. Arsenio Roldan, Jr., in his capacity as Acting Commissioner,
statutory lapse or intent may have allowed preliminary injunction where Philippine Fisheries Commission, and The Philippine Navy
local taxes are involved but cannot negate the procedural rules and Respondent: Hon. Francisco Arca, as Presiding Judge of the CFI of Manila (Branch
requirements under Rule 58. 1) and Morabe, De Guzman & Company
5. The issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction in the present case, as in Date: July 25, 1975
any other case, is addressed to the sound discretion of the court,
conditioned on the existence of a clear and positive right of the movant Summary: MDC filed a civil case with preliminary injunction against Fisheries
which should be protected. Commissioner Roldan for the recovery of fishing vessel Tony Lex VI, which had been
6. The circumstances required for the writ to issue do not obtain in the case at seized and impounded by Roldan through the Philippine Navy dismissed but
bar. The damage that may be caused to the petitioner will not, of course, be vessel remained with Roldan because of the injunction. Roldan then requested the
irreparable; whatever it shall have paid is easily refundable. Besides, the Philippine Navy to apprehend Tony Lex VI and Tony Lex III, which were both owned
damage to its property rights must perforce take a back seat to the by MDC, for dynamite fishing. Thereafter, a criminal complaint was filed the
paramount need of the State for funds to sustain governmental functions. Provincial Fiscal of Palawan against MDC. CFI of Palawan ordered Philippine Navy to
The policy of the law is to discountenance any delay in the collection of take the boats in custody. Thereafter, MDC filed a complaint with injunction against
taxes because of the oft-repeated but unassailable consideration that taxes Roldan, from which Judge Arca granted injunction upon filing of MDC of a bond for
are the lifeblood of the Government and their prompt and certain the release of the 2 boats. I: Judge Arca erred? YES H: When Judge Arca issued the
availability is an imperious need. challenged Order and the Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, the fishing
7. Equally pertinent is the rule that courts should avoid issuing a writ of vessels were already under the jurisdiction of the CFI of Palawan upon motion of the
AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 35

Provincial Fiscal directing the Philippine Navy to detain said vessels. The
jurisdiction over the vessels acquired by the Palawan CFI cannot be interfered with HELD: WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED and the Order of Respondent
by another CFI. The Orders of the Palawan CFI expressly direct the Philippine Navy Judge, the Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction issued thereunder and the
to hold in custody the 2 vessels and that same should not be released without Order are hereby SET ASIDE as NULL AND VOID, with costs against private
prior order or authority from this Court. respondent

Facts: 1. When Judge Arca issued the challenged Order and the Writ of Preliminary
1. This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction Mandatory Injunction, the fishing vessels were already under the
to restrain Judge Arca from enforcing his order and the writ of preliminary jurisdiction of the CFI of Palawan upon motion of the Provincial Fiscal
mandatory injunction thereunder issued. directing the Philippine Navy to detain said vessels. The jurisdiction over
2. Morabe, De Guzman & Company (MDC) filed with the CFI of Manila a civil the vessels acquired by the Palawan CFI cannot be interfered with by
case against Fisheries Commissioner Arsenio Roldan (Roldan) for the another CFI. The Orders of the Palawan CFI expressly direct the Philippine
recovery of fishing vessel Tony Lex VI which had been seized and Navy to hold in custody the 2 vessels and that same should not be
impounded by Roldan through the Philippine Navy. released without prior order or authority from this Court
a. MDC prayed for a writ of preliminary injunction denied 2. It is basic that once court cannot interfere with the judgments, orders or
b. CFI set aside its order and granted writ of preliminary injunction decrees of another court of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction having
MDC took possession of the vessel. equal power to grant the relief sought by injunction; because if coordinate
c. CFI dismissed the civil case for failure of MDC to prosecute as well courts were allowed to interfere with each others judgments, decrees or
as for failure of Roldan and the Philippine Navy to appear on the injunctions, the same would obviously lead to confusion and might
scheduled date of hearing. The vessel, however, remained in the seriously hinder the administration of justice.
possession of MDC. 3. It is immaterial that the vessels were in the Philippine Navy base in Manila;
3. Thereafter, Roldan requested the Philippine Navy to apprehend vessels for the same in no way impugns the jurisdiction already vested in the
Tony Lex VI and Tony Lex III for alleged violations of some provisions of Palawan CFI.
the Fisheries Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. 4. The Dismissal of the first Civil Case by the CFI of Manila had the necessary
a. The 2 fishing boats were seized for illegal fishing with dynamite. effect of automatically dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction issued
Fish caught with dynamite and sticks of dynamite were then found therein, directing the return of the fishing vessel Tony Lex VI. Such a
aboard preliminary writ cannot survive the main case of which it was but an
4. Roldan then requested the Palawan Provincial Fiscal to file criminal incident; because an ancillary writ of preliminary injunction loses its force
charges against the crew members of the fishing vessels. The Fiscal filed an and effect after the dismissal of the main petition
ex parte motion to hold the boats in custody as instruments and therefore 5. Petitioners can validly direct and/or effect the seizure of the vessels of MDC
evidence of the crime and cabled Roldan to detain the vessels. CFI of for illegal fishing by the use of dynamite and without the requisite licenses
Palawan ordered the Philippine Navy to take the boats in custody. by virtue of RA 3512, which empowers the Fisheries Commissioner to carry
5. MDC filed a complaint with application for preliminary mandatory out the provisions of the Fisheries Act.
injunction with the CFI of Manila against petitioners and alleged that at the 6. When the Philippine Navy, upon request of the Fisheries Commissioner,
time of the seizure of the fishing boats, the same were engaged in legitimate apprehended the fishing boats Tony Lex III and Tony Lex VI, these vessels
fishing operation; and that by virtue of the offer of compromise from MDC were found to be without the necessary license in violation of the Tariff and
to the Secreaty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, the numerous Customs Code and therefore subject to seizure, and illegally fishing with
violation of the Fishery Law, if any, by the crew members of the vessels explosives and without fishing license required by the Fisheries Law
were settled. 7. The 2 fishing boats were apprehended on numerous occasions for fishing
6. Judge Arca issued the challenged order granting the issuance of the writ of with dynamite, which violations MDC sought to compromise by offering to
preliminary mandatory injunction and issued the preliminary writ upon pay a fine of P21,000.00 for all said prior violations. Such previous
the filing by MDC of a bond of P5,000.00 for the release of the 2 vessels. violations rendered the said vessels subject to forfeiture under the
Fisheries Act.
ISSUE: WoN Judge committed GADALEJ in issuing the assailed Order YES
AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 36

8. The alleged compromise approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and In 1964, members of the Permanent Concrete Workers Union (PCWU), who are
Natural Resources cannot be invoked by MDC because the said compromise also employees of Permcon, declared a strike. For unknown reasons and w/o legal
referred to about thirty violations of the fisheries law. The violations by the justification, PCWU strikers picketed, stopped and prohibited a truck owned by LPI
2 vessels of MDC by reason of which these vessels were apprehended and from entering the compound in order to load newsprint. The strikers also prohibited
detained by the Philippine Navy upon request of the Commissioner of the general manager, personnel manager and other employees of LPI from entering
Fisheries, were committed after. Moreover, the power to compromise the compound.
would exist only before a criminal prosecution is instituted.
LPI made repeated demands to the strikers not to intimidate and threaten its
employees with bodily harm and not to blockade, picket or prohibit LPI's truck from
2. Liwayway Publications v. PCWU, 108 SCRA 161 getting newsprint in their bodega. The strikers refused and continued to refuse to
GR No. L-25003 | October 23, 1981 give in to the demands of the LPI.
Plaintiff: Liwayway Publications Inc
Respondents: Permanent Concrete Workers Union (affiliated with the National During the strike, LPI rented another bodega, and incurred bodega rental expenses,
Association of Trade Unions); Hermogenes Atrazo; Aquilino Distor; Benjamin as well as additional transportation expenses.
Gutierrez; Jose Ramos; Tiburcio Mardo; Ernesto Almario and Domingo Leano
LPI then went to the CFI of Manila and filed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
Recit-ready version: injunction, which the court issued. The writ enjoined the strikers from threatening
LPI rents a portion of the compound of Permcon, where it has a newsprint bodega. and intimidating LPIs employees and managers, as well as ordered the strikers not
One day, LPI was prevented by strikers of the PCWU, a union of Permcon workers, to blockade and/or picket the compound and LPIs gate.
from entering its premises. LPI alleged that even its managerial employees were
threatened and intimidated. Thus, LPI filed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary The PCWU moved to dismiss the complaint, stating that basically the case is one of
injunction with the CFI of Manila. PCWU opposed, saying that the CFI has no unfair labor practice, which gives the Court of Industrial Relations the exclusive
jurisdiction, as the case involves a labor dispute (and since its a labor dispute, the jurisdiction (and not the CFI); and that LPI is not the real party in interest, as it
Court of Industrial Relations has exclusive jurisdiction over it). The SC said that, should be Permcon who must file the case.
preliminarily, the right to strike is not an absolute right, and may be curtailed
(through injunction) if the rights of an innocent bystander are invaded, which LPI opposed the motion, contending that since there is no employer-employee
happened in this case. Also, while the general rule is that if an unfair labor practices relationship between LPI and PCWU, it is the CFI that has jurisdiction.
case had already been filed with the CIR, it is the CIR that can issue an injunction,
such general rule will not apply in this case, as LPI has absolutely no connection PCWU argued that even if there was no employer-employee relationship, still the
with the ongoing labor dispute between PCWU and Permcon. Since LPIs right to CFI would have no jurisdiction to issue an injunction, citing several cases holding
enter the premises was invaded, and there being no labor-related connection that there could be a labor dispute regardless of whether or not the disputants stand
between LPI and labor dispute, the CFI had jurisdiction to issue the injunction. Thus, in proximate relation of employer and employee and that peaceful picketing is an
the injunction was validly issued. extension of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution, a fundamental
right granted to labor which cannot be enjoined. In addition, PCWU contends that
Facts LPI should sue Ramon Roces instead, pursuant to the lessor-lessee relationship
Liwayway Publications Inc. (LPI) is a second sublessee (the first lessee being provision of Art. 1654 of the Civil Code.
someone named Ramon Roces) of a part of the premises of Permanent Concrete
Products Inc (Permcon), located in Sta. Mesa, Manila. The premises of LPI is The CFI denied PCWUs contentions and dismissed its motion to dismiss, ruling that
separated by a barbed wire fence from that of Permcon, and that LPI has its own there is no labor dispute between PCWU and LPI. Thereafter, the court declared
entrance to its portion, separate from the entrance of Permcon. LPI has a newsprint permanent the writ of preliminary injunction and ordered PCWU to pay damages
bodega in its sublet portion. and attorneys fees.

Issues/Held:

AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 37

W/N the CFI has jurisdiction to issue a writ of preliminary injunction, o Interpreting the PAFLU ruling, the SC said that it is necessary to
considering the labor dispute between Permcon and PCWU for alleged determine the nature of the controversy in order to see if the PAFLU
unfair labor practicesYES ruling can apply.
W/N LPI is a third party or an innocent bystander, whose right has been o In this case, there is absolutely no connection between PCWU and
invaded and is entitled to protectionYES Permcon on one hand, and LPI and its employees/managers on the
other.
Ratio o The only connection is that both LPI and Permcon occupy the
A. On the right to picket same compound, but still that does not mean that LPI has been
The right to picket as a means of communicating the facts of a labor dispute interwoven in the unfair labor practice case between Permcon and
is a phrase of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the constitution. PCWU, which had already been filed with the CIR
If peacefully carried out, it cannot be curtailed even in the absence of Being the innocent bystander in this case, LPIs right to enter and work in
employer-employee relationship. its premises was invaded by the strikers. And since there is no connection
The right is, however, not an absolute one. between LPI and the unfair labor practice case filed with the CIR, the CFI had
o While peaceful picketing is entitled to protection as an exercise of jurisdiction to issue the injunction. Thus, the injunction was valid.
free speech, courts are not without power to confine or localize the
sphere of communication or the demonstration to the parties to the C. On the issue of trespass [not important]
labor dispute, including those with related interest, and to insulate Art. 1654 of the Civil Code provides:
establishments or persons with no industrial connection or having o The lessor is obliged xxx To maintain the lessee in the peaceful
interest totally foreign to the context of the dispute. and adequate enjoyment of the lease for the entire duration of the
o Thus, the right may be regulated at the instance of third parties or contract.
"innocent bystanders," if it appears that the inevitable result of its Such provision is not in point, mostly because the lessor shall not be
exercise is to create an impression that a labor dispute with which obliged to answer for the mere fact of a trespass (simple trespass or
they have no connection or interest exists between them and the perturbacion de mero hecho) made by a third person in the use of the
picketing union, or to constitute an invasion of their rights. estate leased, but the lessee shall have a direct action against the trespasser.
o In one case decided by the SC (not mention of which case), the SC o Thus, pursuant to Art. 1664: The lessor is not obliged to answer
upheld a trial court's injunction prohibiting the union from for a mere act of trespass which a third person may cause on the
blocking the entrance to a feed mill located within the compound use of the thing leased; but the lessee shall have a direct action
of a flour mill with which the union had a dispute. against the intruder.
o In one American case, a picket by a labor union in front of a o The obligation of the lessor under Art. 1654 to maintain the lessee
motion picture theater with which the union had a labor dispute in the peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the lease for the entire
was enjoined by the court from being extended in front of the duration of the contract arises only when acts, termed as legal
main entrance of the building housing the theater wherein other trespass (perturbacion de derecho), disturb, dispute, object to,
stores operated by third persons were located. or place difficulties in the way of the lessee's peaceful enjoyment
of the premises that in some manner or other cast doubt upon the
B. On jurisdiction right of the lessor by virtue of which the lessor himself executed
It is conceded that a labor dispute exists between PCWU and Permcon. the lease, in which case the lessor is obliged to answer for said act
Citing PAFLU v. Caluag: The general rule is that where the Court of Industrial of trespass.
Relations has already acquired jurisdiction over unfair labor practices cases, The act of trespass committed by PCWU were considered by the SC as
the CFI can no longer issue a writ of preliminary injunction, as it is the CIR simple trespass, and thus LPIs act of filing a case against PCWU (and not
who can. against Ramon Roces) was correct.
o However, such rule is inapplicable, as the facts of PAFLU and of this
case are essentially different.
Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction

AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 38

Facts:
1. Commissioner of Customs v. Cloribel, et al., 19 SCRA 235 Herminio Teves entered into an agreement with the National Rice and Corn
GR No L-20266 | Jan 31, 1967 | Sanchez Corporation. (NARIC) By virtue thereof, Teves was authorized "to act as
Petitioner: The Commissioner of Customs Agent" of NARIC "in exporting" rice "as well as in importing the collateral
Respondents: The Honorable Judge Gaudencio Cloribel, Judge of the Court of First goods" that will be brought in "thru barter under the NARIC Chapter and
Instance of Manila, Branch Vi, and Herminio Teves the arrangements with other government agencies, as presently authorized
and to buy the aforementioned collateral goods."
Summary: Teve entered into an agreement with NARIC where he will act as its Shortly after the execution of the contract, due to acute shortage of staple
agent in exporting rice and importing collateral goods. Due to shortage of staple products that cropped up in the country, the President suspended all
products in the country, the President suspended all rice exportations. Teves projected rice exportations including that of Teves.
requested that he be allowed to perform his contractual commitments. The o Teves, representing that he already had contractual commitments
President and his cabinet gave him the authority to do so. In accordance therewith, here to supply third parties with the goods he intended to import,
Teves imported 22 shipments or more of merchandise. Economic Coordinator wrote and likewise abroad for the barter of local rice with foreign
Commissioner of Customs requesting for the CoC to hold goods coming in as products, sought authority from the President and his cabinet to
importations, using the name of NARIC and same should only be released after import ahead of the exportation the collateral commodities
clearance by the NARIC. Thus, shipments of Teves were withheld. He asked to have supposed to have been bartered under his agreement with the
the imported goods delivered to him, because of the deteriorating nature of some of NARIC namely, 40% essentials, 20% semi-essentials and 40%
them, upon the filing of surety bonds. The Justice Secretary acceded. Teves non-essentials.
subsequently sued for prohibition and mandamus in the CFI of Manila. Also, Teves o President and his cabinet granted the authority requested. The
moved the court to issue a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, ordering the license of Teves to import was revalidated "for a period of 120
Commissioner to cancel and/or cause to be cancelled the bonds heretofore recited days", "Provided the importation of such collateral commodities
covering the 22 shipments or more. I: W/N the CFI has jurisdiction NO. R: duty of shall be limited only to the extent of his contractual commitments
the Commissioner to first cause an inquiry into the facts before he releases the with foreign suppliers as of September 14, 1960" and that "the
bonds is quite apparent. He must look into the legality of the importation. Nothing existence of such contractual commitments shall be verified by the
extant in the record would show that the Commissioner, by a formal decision, had Administrator of Economic Coordination."
ruled on the legality of the importation. It is only after a decision adverse to him is In accordance therewith, Teves imported 22 shipments or more of
rendered that Teves may summon the aid of the corresponding court. The merchandise consisting largely of Toyopet cars, several bags of synthetic
disposition of the Commissioner will not come under the Court of First Instance on rubber and resin, medicinal preparations, and radio and electronic parts
appeal. Such appeal should be addressed to the Court of Tax Appeals. I: Assuming and motors, and other items. Customs duties and taxes therefor were paid.
that the CFI has jurisdiction, W/N Judge Cloribel committed grave abuse of Economic Coordinator wrote Commissioner of Customs stating "as per
discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction YES. R: Sec 1, agreement with the Chairman-General Manager of the NARIC we are
Rule 58, expressly provides that a court, at any stage of an action prior to final requesting that you hold goods coming in as importations, using the name
judgment, may "require the performance of a particular act, in which case it shall be of NARIC and same should only be released after clearance by the NARIC,
known as a preliminary mandatory injunction." But, it is but a provisional remedy to through the Office of Economic Coordination.
which parties may resort "for the preservation or protection of their rights or o Because of this, the shipments of Teves were withheld by the
interests, and for no other purpose, during the pendency of the principal action." Commissioner, pending compliance by Teves of said directive.
More than this, as a mandatory injunction "usually tends to do more than to Teves asked the Justice Secretary and the Commissioner to have
maintain the status quo, it is generally improper to issue such an injunction prior to the imported goods delivered to him, because of the deteriorating
the final hearing." The writ issued by the judge does not maintain the status quo. nature of some of them, upon the filing of surety bonds. The
Had the bonds not been posted by Teves, the goods he imported would not have Secretary of Justice acceded. Teves then posted surety bonds,
been released. The purpose of injunctions i.e., to restore the original situation of the accepted by the Commissioner: some issued by Meridian
parties, is here absent. Not being present, the writ itself can hardly be sustained as Assurance Corporation, the rest by Fieldmen's Insurance
equitable.

AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 39

Company. The importations were thus released under these Sec 1, Rule 58, expressly provides that a court, at any stage of an action
bonds. prior to final judgment, may "require the performance of a particular act, in
Teves subsequently sued for prohibition and mandamus in the CFI of which case it shall be known as a preliminary mandatory injunction." But, it
Manila. Also, Teves moved the court to issue a writ of preliminary is but a provisional remedy to which parties may resort "for the
mandatory injunction, ordering the Commissioner to cancel and/or cause preservation or protection of their rights or interests, and for no other
to be cancelled the bonds heretofore recited covering the 22 shipments or purpose, during the pendency of the principal action."
more, which arrived prior to January 12, 1962. Then, Teves asked that, More than this, as a mandatory injunction "usually tends to do more than to
after hearing, all injunctions be declared permanent. maintain the status quo, it is generally improper to issue such an injunction
Judge Gaudencio Cloribel made out an order granting the injunctions prior to the final hearing." Per contra, it may issue "in cases of extreme
prayed for, including a preliminary mandatory injunction. The next day, the urgency, where the right is very clear; where considerations of relative
writ was issued, upon the posting of a P5,000.00 bond by Teves. inconvenience bear strongly in complainant's favor; where there is a willful
Hence, the present original petition for certiorari and prohibition. The SC and unlawful invasion of plaintiff's right against his protest and
granted, without bond, the preliminary injunction prayed for, restraining remonstrance, the injury being a continuing one; and where the effect of
respondents from proceeding or enforcing the lower court's order and the the mandatory injunction is rather to reestablish and maintain a preexisting
writ of preliminary injunction thereupon issued. continuing relation between the parties, recently and arbitrarily interrupted
by the defendant, than to establish a new relation.9 Indeed, "the writ should
Issues/Held: not be denied the complainant when he makes out a clear case, free from
1. W/N the CFI has the jurisdiction to hear and decide the case NO. doubt and dispute."
2. Assuming that the CFI had jurisdiction, did the Judge Cloribel abuse his The Commissioner believes that Judge Cloribel abused his discretion in
discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction YES. issuing the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. Because, if the surety
bonds posted by Teves are already cancelled before trial has ever begun,
Court of Tax Appeals has jurisdiction "there would be no more subject matter of Civil Case No. 51296, as the
The duty of the Commissioner to first cause an inquiry into the facts before respondent Judge would have in effect granted complete relief to Teves,
he releases the bonds is quite apparent. He must look into the legality of the and the government would be completely without any protection for
importation. Nothing extant in the record would show that the whatever claims and interest it might have in the importations which were
Commissioner, by a formal decision, had ruled on the legality of the released, except to go after the bond of petitioner in the small sum of
importation. It is only after a decision adverse to him is rendered that P5,000.00 as compared to the amount of the bonds sought to be cancelled
Teves may summon the aid of the corresponding court. in the total sum of P264,620.25."
But, the disposition of the Commissioner will not come under the Court of The Commissioners view deserves assent. For, Teves has not made out "a
First Instance on appeal. Such appeal should be addressed to the Court of clear case, free from doubt and dispute". True, there is no question as to the
Tax Appeals. The CTA exercises exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review legal authority of NARIC to engage in barter transactions. But there are
by appeal decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving doubts, still unresolved, as to the legality of how such barter authority was
liability for customs duties, fees or other money charges; seizure, detention here exercised. On this score alone, Teves' right to import purportedly as
or release of property affected; fines, forfeitures or other penalties imposed an agent of the NARIC and ahead of rice exportation is not so clear that
in relation thereto; or other matters arising under the Customs Law or he can ask for the cancellation of the bonds he posted to secure the release
other law or part of law administered by the Bureau of Customs. of his importations even before a hearing on the merits.
The authority to rule on the legality of the importation still rests with the The writ issued by the judge does not maintain the status quo. Had the
Customs authorities; appeal from the decision of the Commissioner is to the bonds not been posted by Teves, the goods he imported would not have
Court of Tax Appeals. We, accordingly, hold that the Court of First Instance been released. The purpose of injunctions i.e., to restore the original
of Manila had no jurisdiction to entertain the civil case filed by Teves. situation of the parties, is here absent. Not being present, the writ itself can
hardly be sustained as equitable.
Committed grave abuse of discretion To enforce the writ is to practically decide the case in favor of Teves. To
proceed with the case below on the merits would then be a useless

AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 40

ceremony. Because, Teves would have gotten what he precisely wanted in


that suit cancellation of the bonds. And, the government shall have lost Facts:
its last hold on the shipments of Teves and literally shall have been left Some fourteen (14) years ago, the Capitol Medical Center, Inc. (or CMCI), a
"holding the bag". By all notions of equity, this cannot be sanctioned. hospital corporation, organized, opened, and operated the Capitol Medical
We concede that the issuance of preliminary injunctions rests upon the Center College beside its hospital, the Capitol Medical Center in Quezon
sound discretion of the court. Nevertheless, as the Court pointed out in a City. It offered a four-year nursing course, a two-year midwifery course,
recent case, "sound judicial discretion, however, is no license to undo the and a two-year medical secretarial course. In the first semester of the
law by defeating its objectives." A clear case of abuse of discretion is here school year 1987-88, 900 students were enrolled in various courses in the
present. college.
Half-way through the first semester in 1987, the college faculty, led by the
Dean of Nursing, demanded that they be granted vacation and sick leave
2. Capitol Medical Center Inc. v. CA, 178 SCRA 493 (1989) privileges similar to those enjoyed by hospital personnel. Dialogues were
Capitol Medical Center Inc. v. CA held but no agreement was reached between the faculty and the school
G.R. No. L-82499 October 13, 1989 administration, headed by the president, Dr. Thelma Navarette-Clemente,
Petitioners: CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., and DRA. THELMA NAVARRETE who was concurrently also the chairman of the CMCI Board.
CLEMENTE, THE Respondents: COURT OF APPEALS, HON. IGNACIO SALVADOR, in Dr. Clemente reported the deteriorating relationship between the CMCC
his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 77 of the Regional Trial Court of the administration and the teachers, which, from a simple disagreement, had
National Capital Region (Quezon City), MONINA REYES-VALENZUELA, PABLO L. degenerated into open hostility. She feared that the situation may give rise
DAMASO, LINA M. ABLANG, MA. TERESITA ROQUE, AMBROSIO LAZOL, DIOSDADO to mass action by the students, because the faculty, exercising their moral
YAP, FLORDELIZA SINGSON, SARAH P. PELOBELLO JOEL H. GILLEGO, AGNES A. DE influence over the students, had enlisted the latter's sympathy and support
VEGA, NORAIDA Y. MAGALONG, AUGENCIO PAPA, IMELDA SIMBILLO, MAXIMO for their cause.
CALDERON and ROSALIE FLORIDA C. ILAGA The Board resolved to authorize her, as president of the College, to close it
at the end of the first semester if the antagonism of the faculty and students
Summary: 15 students and parents purporting to represent the 900 students of the toward the college administration should become uncontrollable.
CMCC filed a class suit against "Capitol Medical Center College" and Dr. Clemente, in
the RTC of Quezon City praying for the reopening of the CMCC which had been THE CASE
closed effective at the end of the first semester of the school year 1987-1988. The 15 students and parents purporting to represent the 900 students of the
lower court granted the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction and directed the CMCC filed a class suit against "Capitol Medical Center College" and
defendants "to reopen (the) school and allow plaintiffs students to enroll in their petitioner Dr. Clemente, in the RTC of Quezon City praying for the
respective courses" It fixed the plaintiffs' bond in the sum of P50,000. This was reopening of the Capitol Medical Center College which had been closed
affirmed by the CA. Our issue here is whether or not the school may be forced to effective at the end of the first semester of the school year 1987-1988.
reopen. NO. The writ of preliminary mandatory injunction was issued by the trial As the complaint prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
court not to restore that status quo, but to restore conditions preceding the status mandatory injunction, the court set the hearing of the application. As
quo, i.e., to reopen and resume the holding of classes which the private respondents agreed at the hearing, an opposition was filed by CMCC.
themselves by their mass actions had disrupted. In issuing the writ of preliminary The lower court granted the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction and
injunction for that purpose, the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion for directed the defendants "to reopen (the) school and allow plaintiffs
it allowed the writ to be used by the plaintiffs to undo the mischief that they students to enroll in their respective courses" It fixed the plaintiffs' bond in
themselves had initiated. The contract between the college and a student who is the sum of P50,000.
enrolled and pays the fees for a semester, is for the entire semester only, not for the CMC filed a motion for reconsideration but the court denied their motion.
entire course. Since their contracts with the school were terminated at the end of CMC elevated the order to the Court of Appeals on a petition for certiorari
the first semester of 1987, and as the school has already ceased to operate, they with preliminary injunction. The CA issued a restraining order and directed
have no "clear legal right" to re-enroll and the school has no legal obligation to the respondents to comment on the petition.
reopen and readmit them.

AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 41

o CA rendered a decision holding that the respondent RTC Judge did The status quo was that the school was already closed. CMCC was closed
not abuse his discretion in issuing the order of preliminary effective at the end of the first semester, i.e, the first week of November
mandatory injunction because the petitioners had no right to 1987.
suddenly close the school for the enrollment of the students What was the status quo prior to the closure of the school? There were no
created a binding contract between them and the school for the classes. The school was deserted. The teachers and students were on strike;
latter to continue operating until the former shall have finished they refused to attend classes and held noisy rallies in front of the CMC
their courses. hospital instead.
CMC filed a motion for reconsideration and re-hearing. Nevertheless, the The writ of preliminary mandatory injunction was issued by the trial court
CA denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition for not to restore that status quo, but to restore conditions preceding the status
review. quo, i.e., to reopen and resume the holding of classes which the private
respondents themselves by their mass actions had disrupted.
Issue: Whether a school that, after due notice to the Secretary of Education, Culture o In issuing the writ of preliminary injunction for that purpose,
and Sports, closed at the end of the first semester of the school year 1987-1988, the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion for it
because its teachers and students declared a strike, refusing to hold classes and take allowed the writ to be used by the plaintiffs to undo the
examinations, may be forced to reopen by the courts at the instance of the striking mischief that they themselves had initiated.
students. NO The teachers, by refusing to teach, and the students, by refusing to attend
classes, made the continued operation of the CMCC futile and untenable.
Ratio: The college had no reason to remain open under the situation which the
The sole object of a preliminary injunction, whether prohibitory or private respondents themselves brought about.
mandatory, is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be Did the private respondents have a clear legal right to reopen the school
heard. The status quo is the last actual peaceable uncontested status which and to be readmitted therein?
preceded the controversy. It may only be resorted to by a litigant for the The CA answered that question affirmatively on the theory that "the initial
preservation or protection of his rights or interests and for no other enrollment" of the students (meaning their enrollment in the first year of
purpose during the pendency of the principal action. It should only be their chosen courses) created "a binding contract" between the students
granted if the party asking for it is clearly entitled thereto. and the school, by which the latter became "legally and morally bound to
Inasmuch as a mandatory injunction tends to do more than to maintain continue operating the school until such enrollees shall have finished their
the status quo, it is generally improper to issue such an injunction prior to courses.
the final hearing. However, there is no contract between him and the school for the latter to
o It may, however, issue "in cases of extreme urgency; where the remain open for the entire duration of his course. Section VII, paragraph No.
right is very clear; where considerations of relative inconvenience 137, of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools provides:
bear strongly in complainant's favor; where there is a willful and o 137. When a student registers in a school, it is understood that he
unlawful invasion of plaintiffs right against his protest and is enrolling for the entire school year for elementary and
remonstrance, the injury being a continuing one; and where the secondary courses, and for the entire semester for collegiate course.
effect of the mandatory injunction is rather to re-establish and xxx
maintain a pre-existing continuing relation between the parties, The contract between the college and a student who is enrolled and pays
recently and arbitrarily interrupted by the defendant, than to the fees for a semester, is for the entire semester only, not for the entire
establish a new relation. Indeed, the writ should not be denied the course. The law does not require a school to see a student through to the
complainant when he makes out a clear case free from doubt and completion of his course. If the school closes or is closed by proper
dispute." authority at the end of a semester, the student has no cause of action for
The questions that we might ask are: breach of contract against the school.
What was the status quo before the private respondents filed their Thus did this Court rule in "Alcuaz, et al. vs. Philippine School of Business
complaint "for specific performance"? Do the private respondents have a Administration, Quezon City Branch, et al.," a case which involved some
clear legal right to demand the reopening of the school? students and teachers who had participated in mass actions and rallies in

AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.
[PROVREM DIGESTS-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION] 42

the respondent school and who were respectively denied re-admission for teachers in spite of their refusal to desist from continuing their disruptive
enrollment, and re-appointment to teaching positions in the school: mass actions against the school.
o It is beyond dispute that a student once admitted by the school is
considered enrolled for one semester. It is provided in Paragraph Held: WHEREFORE, the petition for review is granted. The decision dated May
137 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, that when a college 15,1988 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 13626 is hereby set aside. The
student registers in a school, it is understood that he is enrolling order and writ of preliminary mandatory injunction issued by the Regional Trial
for the entire semester. The school cannot be compelled to enter Court of Quezon City, Branch 77, in Civil Case No. Q-52429 are hereby annulled and
into another contract with said students and teachers. The courts, set aside. Costs against the private respondents. SO ORDERED.
be they the original trial court or the appellate court, have no
power to make contracts for the parties.' Doctrine of RELATIVE CONVENIENCE/HARDSHIP
A. Significantly, in Alcuaz only some students and teachers left their
classrooms to hold rallies in the school premises. The majority remained in
the classrooms. The school did not cease to operate. In this case, however,
all the teachers and students struck and abandoned their classes.
B. In Alcuaz, the mass assemblies and barricades were held for three days.
In the CMCC case, the "strike" began on October 14 and continued until the
end of the semester.
C. In Alcuaz, the school did not close but it nevertheless refused to re-admit
the offending students and teachers. In this case, the school has closed
completely.
We, therefore, hold that the lower court gravely abused its discretion
in compelling the CMCC to reopen and re-admit the striking students
for enrollment in the second semester of their courses.
o Since their contracts with the school were terminated at the end of
the first semester of 1987, and as the school has already ceased to
operate, they have no "clear legal right" to re-enroll and the school
has no legal obligation to reopen and readmit them. Indeed,
neither is there a law or rule that obligates a student who has
enrolled in a school, to remain there until he finishes his course.
On the contrary he may transfer at any time to any school that is
willing to accept him.
But even if it can be supposed that the enrollment of a student creates an
implied "binding contract" with the school to educate him for the entire
course, since a contract creates reciprocal rights and obligations, the
obligation of the school to educate a student would imply a corresponding
obligation on the part of the student to study and obey the rules and
regulations of the school. When students breach that supposed contract by
refusing to attend their classes, preferring to take to the streets to mount a
noisy demonstration against their school, the latter may cancel the contract
and close its doors. Its action would neither be arbitrary nor unfair.
It was the trial court that acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion
in ordering the school to reopen and re-admit the striking students and

AQUINO.DEGUZMAN.GERONA.GILTENDEZ.MEER.PINEDA.TAYLO.