9.

BACOLOD CITY WATER DISTRICT VS LABAYEN

A temporary restraining order (TRO) is a legal document issued by a judge before trial that
forces or prevents an action for a specified time frame.
A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the
judgement or final order, requiring a party or a court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular act or
acts.
Facts
This case involves a dispute between the Bacolod City Water District (BACIWA) and the City of
Bacolod regarding the implementation of water rate adjustments. BACIWA is a GOCC
responsible for providing safe and potable water to Bacolod City. The City of Bacolod, on the
other hand, is a municipal corporation created by Commonwealth Act No. 326.
The City of Bacolod filed a case against BACIWA, alleging that the proposed water rates would
violate due process as they were to be imposed without the required public hearing. The City
requested a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction to prevent the
implementation of the rate increase.
The trial court issued an order summoning the parties to attend a preliminary hearing for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order or preliminary mandatory injunction. BACIWA
argued that the court did not have jurisdiction over the case and that the matter should be
resolved by the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) and the National Water Resources
Board (NWRB).
The trial court eventually issued a temporary restraining order, commanding BACIWA to stop
implementing the proposed water rates. BACIWA filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing
that the order was a preliminary injunction and that the court had acted without jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeals dismissed BACIWA's petition for certiorari, stating that the order was
indeed a preliminary injunction.
BACIWA appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the order was a temporary restraining
order and that the trial court had acted without jurisdiction.
ISSUE
The main issue raised in the case is whether the order issued by the trial court should be
considered a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of BACIWA, stating that the order issued by the trial court
was indeed a temporary restraining order.
The Supreme Court based its ruling on the language used in the order and the consistent
references to it as a temporary restraining order by both parties and the trial court. The Court
emphasized that a preliminary injunction is a distinct and separate remedy from a temporary
restraining order.
The Court explained that a temporary restraining order is issued to preserve the status quo until
the hearing of the application for preliminary injunction. It is a provisional remedy that is
effective for a limited period of time, usually not exceeding 20 days. On the other hand, a
preliminary injunction is granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment
or final order.
In this case, the order issued by the trial court did not state a specific period for the restraint,
which is a characteristic of a temporary restraining order. The Court also noted that the order
automatically expired after twenty days under the Rules of Court.
The Court further emphasized that the procedural process was short-circuited when the Court of
Appeals issued a decision upholding the temporary restraining order before the trial court could
resolve the petitioner's motion for reconsideration. This denial of due process of law prompted
the Supreme Court to remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

SHORTER:

FACTS:
This case involves dispute between BACIWA and City of Bacolod regarding the implementation
of increase in water rate, the City of Bacolod filed a case for injunction, arguing that the water
rates was imposed without due process through public hearing.
The trial court imposed TRO to prevent BACIWA from implementing the water rate increase.
BACIWA filed a motion to dismiss, but the trial court did not resolve it before issuing a final
injunction. BACIWA filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, which dismissed the decision.
BACIWA then appealed to SC.