ISSUES:

1. Did the SEC guidelines shorten the life span of the writs of preliminary
injunction issued by the SEC–SICD, thereby making them effective only until
August 8, 2000?
2. Did the CA commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction by issuing a TRO against the Imus, Cavite RTC and enjoining Yu vs.
Orchard Golf and Country Club

FACTS:

The respondents questioned the order of the Imus RTC with a motion for
reconsideration, which the RTC denied. The respondents turned to the CA, which
issued a TRO that enjoined the RTC from implementing the writ of preliminary
injunction. The petitioners then filed the second case with the Supreme Court,
questioning the CA’s TRO.
the implementation of its writ of preliminary injunction against respondents?

HELD:
1. YES.
Petitioners contend that the guidelines could not have possibly limited the
effectivity of their writs for two reasons: (1) the intention of the guidelines was to
cover applications for such writs and provisional remedies made on or after August