Please research on the propriety of MR as a remedy to the hereto attached order and the

propriety of the court’s extension of the TRO as discussed. Thank you. 

1. If the Order extending the 72-TRO can be subject of MR?

2. Can a TRO be extended?

3. Jurisprudence to counter the Order

Basis of the Judge in extending the TRO:

Considering that the cause for the issuance of the initial TRO – “applicant
will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury” unless the defendants
are enjoined from “further issuing any communication, statement, report,
interview, both written and verbal, concerning the FCD accounts number
307260189840, 307260132792 and 307260189859” – subsists until the
preliminary injunction is finally settled, there is a need to maintain the
status quo pending such determination. The application for extension of
seventeen (17) days from the initial 72-hours of the effectivity of the June
30, 2020 TRO is, therefore, well taken.

4. Validity of the 72-hours extension

5. Propriety of the ground of extension cited in the Order

Order dated 3 July 2020:

The prayer for the extension of the Executive TRO is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly,
the seventy-two 72- hour TRO issued on June 30, 2020 is hereby extended for a period of
seventeen (17) days or until July 20, 2020, enjoining defendant BDO from further issuing
any communication, statement, report, interview, both written and verbal, concerning
the FCD accounts number 307260189840, 307260132792 and 307260189859 of MK
Tolentino Law Office.

Sec. 5, Rule 58 – If it shall appear from the facts shown by affidavits or by the verified
application that great or irreparable injury would result to the applicant before the
matter can be heard on notice, the court to which the application for preliminary
injunction was made, may issue ex parte a temporary restraining order to be effective
only for a period of 20 days from service on the party or person sought to be enjoined,
except as herein provided. Within the twenty-day period, the court must order said
party or person to show cause at a specified time and place, why the injunction should
not be granted. The court shall also determine, within the same period, whether or not
the preliminary injunction shall be granted and accordingly issue the corresponding
order.

However, subject to the provision of the preceding sections, if the matter is of extreme
urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury, the
executive judge of a multiple-sala court or the presiding judge of a single-sala court
may issue ex parte a temporary restraining order effective only for seventy-two (72)
hours from issuance.

A temporary restraining order is an interlocutory order issued in a case to maintain the

subject matter of the controversy in status quo until the hearing of the main application
for preliminary injunction is held.

1) Propriety of MR as a remedy to the hereto attached Order

epartment of Public Works and Highways v. City Advertising Ventures Corp.  defined a writ of pre-
60

liminary injunction as follows:

[A] writ of preliminary injunction is an ancillary and interlocutory order issued as a result of an impar-
tial determination of the context of both parties. It entails a procedure for the judge to assess
whether the reliefs prayed for by the complainant will be rendered moot simply as a result of the par-
ties' having to go through the full requirements of a case being fully heard on its merits. Although a
trial court judge is given a latitude of discretion, he or she cannot grant a writ of injunction if there is
no clear legal right materially and substantially breached from a prima facie evaluation of the evi-
dence of the complainant. Even if this is present, the trial court must satisfy itself that the injury to be
suffered is irreparable.61