Yu vs.

Orchard Golf and Country Club

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.

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 the
implementation of its writ of preliminary injunction against respondents?
FACTS:

Meanwhile petitioners filed a motion ad cautelam in the RTC of

Imus, Cavite, praying for the issuance of a TRO and/or writ of
injunction to enjoin respondents from implementing the
suspension orders. The RTC issued the TRO. It was after this
issuance that the petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration
with the CA. The CA denied the motion and thus the first case
was elevated to the Supreme Court.