provisional remedies case digests

8/11/2019 Provisional Remedies Case Digests

1/12

PROVISIONAL REMEDIES CASE DIGESTS

16. [ G.R. No. 136760, July 29, 2003 ]THE SENATE BLUE RIBBON COITTEE, RE!RESENTE" B# ITS CHAIRAN,SENATOR A$UILINO $. !IENTEL, JR., !ETITIONER, %S. HON. JOSE B.AJA"UCON, !RESI"ING JU"GE O& BRANCH 23, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

O& GENERAL SANTOS CIT#, AN" ATT#. NILO J. &LA%IANO, RES!ON"ENTS.

G.R. NO. 13'37'A$UILINO $. !IENTEL, JR., !ETITIONER, %S. THE HONORABLE JOSE S.AJA"UCON, IN HIS CA!ACIT# AS !RESI"ING JU"GE O& BRANCH 23,REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, GENERAL SANTOS CIT#, RES!ON"ENT.

FACTS

These case involved two consolidated petitions

GR No !"#$#%

In !&&'( the Senate th)o*+h its ,l*e Ri--on Co..ittee cond*cted an in/*i)0( in aido1 le+islation( into the cha)+es o1 then De1ense Sec)eta)0 O)lando Me)cado that a+)o*p o1 active and )eti)ed .ilita)0 o2ce)s we)e o)+ani3in+ a co*p d4etat to p)eventthe ad.inist)ation o1 then P)esident 5oseph Est)ada 1)o. p)o-in+ alle+ed 1*ndi))e+*la)ities in the A).ed Fo)ces o1 the Philippines

D*)in+ the p*-lic hea)in+s( it appea)ed that the AFP p*)chased a lot in Gene)alSantos Cit0( 1o) P!%(6%%%% pe) s/*a)e .ete) 1)o. p)ivate )espondent Att0 Nilo 5Flaviano -*t in the deed o1 sale( the p*)chase p)ice indicated was onl0 P"(%%%%%pe) s/*a)e .ete)

The Co..ittee iss*ed a s*-poena to )espondent Att0 Flaviano di)ectin+ hi. toappea) and testi10 -e1o)e it -*t )espondent instead 7led a petition 1o) p)ohi-itionand p)eli.ina)0 in8*nction with p)a0e) 1o) te.po)a)0 )est)ainin+ o)de) with theRe+ional T)ial Co*)t o1 Gene)al Santos Cit0( ,)anch 9"

The RTC iss*ed a Te.po)a)0 Rest)ainin+ O)de) di)ectin+ the Co..ittee :to CEASEand DESIST 1)o. p)oceedin+ with the in/*i)0 pa)tic*la)l0 in Gene)al Santos Cit0and;o) an0whe)e in Re+ion -? 1ail*)e to state a valid ca*se o1 action( >c?the TRO was invalid violatin+ the )*le a+ainst eBpa)te iss*ance the)eo1 >d? and itwas not en1o)cea-le -e0ond the te))ito)ial 8*)isdiction o1 the t)ial co*)t

RTC denied the petitione)4s .otion to dis.iss and +)anted the w)it o1 p)eli.ina)0in8*nction Th*s( the ,l*e Ri--on Co..ittee 7led -e1o)e the SC petition 1o)


2/12

ce)tio)a)i alle+in+ that )espondent 5*d+e Ma8ad*con co..itted +)ave a-*se o1disc)etion when he

DENIED PETITIONER4S MOTION TO DISMISS TE PETITION FOR PROI,ITIONAND PRELIMINAR IN5NCTION FILED , ATT NILO 5 FLAVIANO

ISSED >!? A TEMPORAR RESTRAINING ORDER E9? A HRIT OFPRELIMINAR IN5NCTION

GR No !"'"$'The Philippine Sta) p*-lished a news )epo)t on the 7lin+ -0 the ,l*e Ri--onCo..ittee with SC o1 the petition 1o) ce)tio)a)i and the news )epo)t /*oted po)tionso1 the petition 7led -0 the Co..ittee( alle+in+ that Re+ional T)ial Co*)t 5*d+eMa8ad*con was +*ilt0 o1 +)oss i+no)ance o1 the )*les and p)oced*)es when heiss*ed the te.po)a)0 )est)ainin+ o)de) and the w)it o1 p)eli.ina)0 in8*nction-eca*se( *nde) the p)inciple o1 sepa)ation o1 powe)s( co*)ts cannot inte)1e)e withthe ee)cise -0 the le+islat*)e o1 its a*tho)it0 to cond*ct investi+ations in aid o1le+islation

Respondent 5*d+e Ma8ad*con then initiated a cha)+e 1o) indi)ect conte.pt o1 co*)ta+ainst Senato) A/*ilino Pi.entel( 5) et al 5*d+e Ma8ad*con ave))ed that thenews )epo)t c)eated in the .inds o1 the )eade) the i.p)ession that he violated thesepa)ation o1 powe)s cla*se o1 the Constit*tion and that he was +*ilt0 o1 +)ossi+no)ance o1 the )*les and p)oced*)es

A decision was )ende)ed on Ap)il !6( !&&& 7ndin+ petitione) Pi.entel +*ilt0 o1indi)ect conte.pt ,l*e Ri--on Co..ittee 7led a petition -e1o)e the SC with the1ollowin+ +)o*nds ep)ession :+)oss i+no)ance o1 the )*les o1 p)oced*)e: o) :+)ossi+no)ance o1 the law: in )e1e)ence to the )espondent4s eBpa)te iss*ance o1in8*nctive )elie1 is not pe8o)ative as to constit*te a +)o*nd 1o) indi)ect conte.pt

The two petitions( na.el0( GR No !"#$#% and GR No !"'"$'( we)e o)de)edconsolidated on Dece.-e) !!( 9%%%

ISSEa? whethe) o) not )espondent 5*d+e 5ose Ma8ad*con co..itted +)ave a-*se o1disc)etion when he dis.issed petitione)4s .otion to dis.iss the petition 1o)p)ohi-ition and iss*ed the w)it o1 p)eli.ina)0 in8*nction and

>-? whethe) o) not )espondent 5*d+e e))ed in convictin+ petitione) Pi.entel o1indi)ect conte.pt o1 co*)t

RLINGFi)st Iss*e Respondent 5*d+e co..itted +)ave a-*se o1 disc)etion

petitione) Co..ittee contends that co*)ts have no 8*)isdiction to )est)ain Con+)ess1)o. pe)1o).in+ its constit*tionall0 vested 1*nction to cond*ct investi+ations in aido1 le+islation( 1ollowin+ the p)inciple o1 sepa)ation o1 powe)s On the othe) hand(


3/12

)espondent Flaviano contends that the t)ial co*)t .a0 p)ope)l0 inte)vene intoinvesti+ations -0 Con+)ess p*)s*ant to the powe) o1 8*dicial )eview vested in it -0the Constit*tion

Hhen the Senate ,l*e Ri--on Co..ittee se)ved s*-poena on )espondent Flavianoto appea) and testi10 -e1o)e it in connection with its investi+ation o1 the alle+ed

.is*se and .is.ana+e.ent o1 the AFPBRS,S 1*nds( it did so p*)s*ant to itsa*tho)it0 to cond*ct in/*i)ies in aid o1 le+islation This is clea)l0 p)ovided in A)ticleVI( Section 9! o1 the Constit*tion

ence( the R()*o+l T-*l Cou- o/ G(+(-l S+o C*y, o- +y ou- /o- (-, 4 +o uo-*y o 5-o** ( Co*(( /-o -(u*-*+)-(5o+4(+ o 55(- +4 (*/y (/o-( *.

In the instant case( the co.plaint a+ainst )espondent Flaviano )e+a)din+ theano.al0 in the sale o1 lot was still pendin+ -e1o)e the O2ce o1 the O.-*ds.anwhen the Co..ittee se)ved s*-poena on hi. In othe) wo)ds( no co*)t hadac/*i)ed 8*)isdiction ove) the .atte) Th*s( the)e was as 0et no enc)oach.ent -0

the le+islat*)e into the ecl*sive 8*)isdiction o1 anothe) -)anch o1 the +ove)n.entence( the denial o1 petitione)4s .otion to dis.iss the petition 1o) p)ohi-itiona.o*nted to +)ave a-*se o1 disc)etion

Second Iss*eHe 7nd that petitione) Pi.entel is not +*ilt0 o1 i.p)ope) cond*ct which o-st)*cts o)de+)ades the ad.inist)ation o1 8*stice

Ve)il0( it does not appea) that Pi.entel ca*sed the p*-lication in the Philippine Sta)o1 the 1act o1 7lin+ o1 the petition 1o) ce)tio)a)i -0 the Co..ittee and the)ep)od*ction o1 ece)pts the)eo1 e had no )i+ht to choose which news a)ticles willsee p)int in the newspape) Rathe)( it is the p*-lishe) the)eo1 which decides which

news events will -e )epo)ted in the -)oadsheet In doin+ so( it is allowed :the widestlatit*de o1 choice as to what ite.s sho*ld see the li+ht o1 da0 so lon+ as the0 a)e)elevant to a .atte) o1 p*-lic inte)est(: p*)s*ant to its )i+ht o1 p)ess 1)eedo.

17. [ G.R. No. 18'80, July 0', 200 ]

SOUTHERN CROSS CEENT COR!ORATION, !ETITIONER, %S. THE!HILI!!INE CEENT ANU&ACTURERS COR!., THE SECRETAR# O& THE"E!ARTENT O& TRA"E : IN"USTR#, THE SECRETAR# O& THE"E!ARTENT O& &INANCE, AN" THE COISSIONER O& THE BUREAU O&CUSTOS, RES!ON"ENTS.


4/12

FACTSOn Ma0 9%%!( Depa)t.ent o1 T)ade and Ind*st)0 accepted an application 1)o.Respondent Philce.co)( alle+in+ that the i.po)tation o1 +)a0 Po)tland ce.ent ininc)eased /*antities has ca*sed declines in do.estic p)od*ction( capacit0*tili3ation( .a)@et sha)e( sales and e.plo0.ent as well as ca*sed dep)essed localp)ices Acco)din+l0( Philce.co) so*+ht the i.position o1 sa1e+*a)d .eas*)es on the

i.po)t o1 ce.ent p*)s*ant to the RA ''%% o) the Sa1e+*a)d Meas*)es Act

DTI )e/*ested the Ta)i= Co..ission to cond*ct a 1o).al investi+ation to dete).inewhethe) o) not to i.pose a de7nitive sa1e+*a)d .eas*)e on i.po)ts o1 +)a0Po)tland ce.ent p*)s*ant to Section & o1 the SMA The Ta)i= Co..ission held thatthe i.po)tation o1 +)a0 Po)tland ce.ent into the Philippines did not ca*se se)io*sin8*)0 to the local ce.ent ind*st)0 It )eco..ended that no de7nitive +ene)alsa1e+*a)d .eas*)e -e i.posed on the i.po)tation o1 +)a0 Po)tland ce.ent

DTI Sec)eta)0 Ma) Roas disa+)eed with the 7ndin+s o1 the Ta)i= Co..ission -*tthe)e was no se)io*s in8*)0 to the local ce.ent ind*st)0 ca*sed -0 the s*)+e o1i.po)ts It then )e/*ested 1o) an opinion 1)o. the DO5 on whethe) the Sec)eta)0 was

-o*nd to the 7ndin+s o1 the Ta)i= Co..ission DO5 opinion advised the DTISec)eta)0 that he was -o*nd with the 7ndin+s Th*s( DTI Sec)eta)0 Roas deniedthe application 1o) sa1e+*a)d .eas*)es 7led -0 )espondent PILCEMCOR

Philce.co) 1iled with the Co*)t o1 Appeals a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition andMandamusJ9'Ksee@in+ to set aside the DTI Decision( as well as the Ta)i=Co..issions Repo)t Philce.co) li@ewise applied 1o) a Temporary RestrainingOrder/Injunctionto en8oin the DTI and the ,OC 1)o. i.ple.entin+ the/*estioned Decisionand Repo)t

So*the)n C)oss 7led its CommentJ"%K It a)+*ed that the Co*)t o1 Appeals had no8*)isdiction ove) Philce.co)s Petition( 1o) it is on the Co*)t o1 Ta Appeals >CTA?

that the SMA con1e))ed 8*)isdiction to )eview )*lin+s o1 the Sec)eta)0 in connectionwith the i.position o1 a sa1e+*a)d .eas*)e

A1te) cond*ctin+ a hea)in+( CA +)anted Philce.co)s application 1o) p)eli.ina)0in8*nction So*the)n Ce.ent 7led a Motion 1o) Reconside)ation while Philce.-o)7led an opposition Appellate co*)t )*led that it had 8*)isdiction ove) the petition 1o)ce)tio)a)i since it alle+ed +)ave a-*se o1 disc)etion and it )e1*sed to ann*l the7ndin+s o1 the Ta)i= Co..ission -*t still held that he DTI Sec)eta)0 is not -o*nd -0the 1act*al 7ndin+s o1 the Ta)i= Co..ission since s*ch 7ndin+s a)e .e)el0)eco..endato)0 and the0 1all within the a.-it o1 the Sec)eta)0s disc)etiona)0)eview

So*the)n Ce.ent 7led a petition -e1o)e the SC assailin+ the CAs decision a)+*in+that CA had no 8*)isdiction and the 1act*al 7ndin+s o1 the Ta)i= Co..ission a)e-indin+ *pon the DTI Sec)eta)0

DTI then iss*ed a new decision which +)anted Philce.co)s application 1o)sa1e+*a)d .eas*)es So*the)n C)oss 7led with the SC a Very rgent !pp"icationfor a Temporary Restraining Order and/or ! #rit of Pre"iminary Injunction>TRO!pp"ication?( see@in+ to en8oin the DTI Sec)eta)0 1)o. en1o)cin+


5/12

his Decisionin view o1 the pendin+ petition -e1o)e this Co*)t Philce.co) 7led anopposition( clai.in+( a.on+ othe)s( that it is not this Co*)t -*t the CTA that has

8*)isdiction ove) the application *nde) the law

So*the)n C)oss also 7led with the CTA a Petition for Re$ie%( assailin+ the DTISec)eta)0s 96 5*ne 9%%" Decisionwhich i.posed the de7nite sa1e+*a)d .eas*)e

ISSE whethe) the Decisiono1 the DTI Sec)eta)0 is appeala-le to the CTA o) the

Co*)t o1 Appeals ass*.in+ that the Co*)t o1 Appeals has 8*)isdiction( whethe) its Decisionis

in acco)dance with law and( whethe) a Temporary Restraining Orderis wa))antedJ$K

RLINGRe p)op)iet0 o1 the TRO

So*the)n C)osss application 1o) p)ovisional )elie1 so*+ht to en8oin the DTI Sec)eta)01)o. en1o)cin+ the de7nitive sa1e+*a)d .eas*)e he i.posed in his 96 5*ne 9%%"Decision The Cou- 4*4 +o )-+ ( 5-o;**o+l -(l*(/ /o- * (( a pe)e.pto)0 8*dicial actwhich is t)aditionall0 1)owned *pon( *nless the)e is a clea) stat*to)0 -asis 1o) it Inthat )e+a)d( S(*o+ 21' o/ ( T> R(/o- A o/ 1997 5-o** +y ou-/-o )-+*+) + *+=u+*o+ o -(-*+ ( oll(*o+ o/ +y +*o+l*+(-+l -(;(+u( >, /(( o- -)( *5o(4 y ( *+(-+l -(;(+u(o4(.A si.ila) philosoph0 is ep)essed -0 S(*o+ 29 o/ ( SA( which statesthat the ?l*+) o/ 5(**o+ /o- -(;*(< (/o-( ( CTA 4o( +o o5,u5(+4, o- o(-


6/12

positive 7nal dete).ination o1 the Ta)i= Co..ission eists as a p)ope)l0 enactedconstit*tional li.itation i.posed on the dele+ation o1 the le+islative powe) toi.pose ta)i=s and i.posts to the P)esident *nde) Section 9'>9?( A)ticle VI o1 theConstit*tion The p)ovision states The Con+)ess .a0( -0 law( a*tho)i3e theP)esident to 7 within speci7ed li.its( and s*-8ect to s*ch li.itations and)est)ictions as it .a0 i.pose( ta)i= )ates( i.po)t and epo)t /*otas( tonna+e and

wha)1a+e d*es( and othe) d*ties o) i.posts within the 1)a.ewo)@ o1 the nationaldevelop.ent p)o+)a. o1 the Gove)n.ent

Petition is +)anted

1'. [ G.R. No. 11'216, - 09, 2000 ]

"ELTA%ENTURES RESOURCES, INC., !ETITIONER, %S. HON. &ERNAN"O !.CABATO, !RESI"ING JU"GE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, LA TRINI"A",BENGUET, BRANCH 62 HON. GELACIO L. RI%ERA, JR., EECUTI%E LABORARBITER, NLRCCAR, BAGUIO CIT#, A"A !. %ENTURA, "E!UT#SHERI&&,NLRCCAR, BAGUIO CIT# ALEJAN"RO BERNAR"INO, AUGUSTO GRANA"OS,

!ILAN"O TANGA#, NESTOR RABANG, RA# "A#A!, #RA BA#AONA, %IOL#LIBAO, AI"A LIBAO, JESUS GATCHO AN" GREGORIO "ULA#, RES!ON"ENTS.

FACTSIn a la-o) case entitled :Ale8and)o ,e)na)dino( et al vs G)een Mo*ntain Fa).(Ro-e)to On+pin and Al.*s Ala-e:( Eec*tive La-o) A)-ite) No).a Ole+a)io decla)edthe )espondents +*ilt0 o1 ille+al dis.issal and *n1ai) la-o) p)actice and o)de)in+ tothe. petitione)s >in the p)esent case a)e the p)ivate )espondents?

In !&&( Eec*tive La-o) A)-ite) Gelacio Rive)a 5) iss*ed a w)it o1 eec*tion andthe)ea1te)( She)i= Ada. Vent*)a +a)nished pe)sonal p)ope)ties o1 the la-o) case)espondents Since these we)e not s*2cient( She)i= Vent*)a also levied a )eal

p)ope)t0 owned -0 )espondent Ro-e)ton On+pin and ca*sed the p*-lication o1 thedate o1 p*-lic a*ction o1 said )eal p)ope)t0

One .onth -e1o)e the sched*led a*ction sale( petitione) Deltaven*)es Reso*)cesInc 7led -e1o)e the NLRC a thi)d pa)t0 clai. asse)tin+ owne)ship ove) the p)ope)t0levied *pon and s*-8ect o1 the She)i=s notice o1 sale

The)ea1te)( Deltavent*)es also 7led with the RTCBT)inidad( ,en+*et a co.plaint 1o)in8*nction and da.a+es with p)a0e) 1o) the iss*ance o1 a te.po)a)0 )est)ainin+o)de) a+ainst She)i= Vent*)a( )eite)atin+ the sa.e alle+ations it )aised in the thi)dpa)t0 clai. it 7led with the Co..ission

RTC 5*d+e Ca-ato iss*ed a TRO and to hold in a-e0ance an0 action )elative to theen1o)ce.ent o1 the decision o1 the la-o) case P)ivate )espondentBla-o)e)s .oved todis.iss the civil case on the +)o*nd o1 lac@ o1 8*)isdiction

RTC iss*ed a )*lin+ that

:Fi)st( this Co*)t is o1 e/*al )an@ with the NLRC( hence( has no 8*)isdiction to

iss*e an in8*nction a+ainst the eec*tion o1 the NLRC decision


7/12

Second( the NLRC )etains a*tho)it0 ove) all p)oceedin+s anent the eec*tiono1 its decision This powe) ca))ies with it the )i+ht to dete).ine eve)0/*estion which .a0 -e involved in the eec*tion o1 its decision

Thi)d( Deltavent*)es Reso*)ces( Inc sho*ld )el0 on and co.pl0 with theR*les o1 the NLRC -eca*se it is the p)incipal p)oced*)e to -e 1ollowed( theR*les o1 Co*)t -ein+ .e)el0 s*ppleto)0 in application(

Petitione) 7led a .otion 1o) )econside)ation which the RTC denied Th*s( it 7led theinstant petition a)+*in+ that the RTC e))ed in dis.issin+ the thi)dBpa)t0 clai. on the+)o*nd o1 lac@ o1 8*)isdiction F*)the)( it contends that the NLRCBCAR did not ac/*i)e

8*)isdiction ove) the clai. 1o) it did not i.p*+n the decision o1 the NLRCBCAR -*t.e)el0 /*estioned the p)op)iet0 o1 the lev0 .ade -0 She)i= Vent*)a

ISSEwhethe) o) not the t)ial co*)t .a0 ta@e co+ni3ance o1 the co.plaint 7led -0petitione) and conse/*entl0 p)ovide the in8*nctive )elie1 so*+ht

RLING RTC has no 8*)isdiction

Ostensi-l0 the co.plaint -e1o)e the t)ial co*)t was 1o) the )ecove)0 o1 possessionand in8*nction( -*t in essence it was an action challen+in+ the le+alit0 o) p)op)iet0o1 the lev0 visBaBvis the alias w)it o1 eec*tion( incl*din+ the acts pe)1o).ed -0 theLa-o) A)-ite) and the Dep*t0 She)i= i.ple.entin+ the w)it The co.plaint was ine=ect a .otion to /*ash the w)it o1 eec*tion o1 a decision )ende)ed on a casep)ope)l0 within the 8*)isdiction o1 the La-o) A)-ite)( to wit Ille+al Dis.issal andn1ai) La-o) P)actice

Conside)in+ the 1act*al settin+( it is then lo+ical to concl*de that the s*-8ect .atte)

o1 the thi)d pa)t0 clai. is -*t an incident o1 the la-o) case( a .atte) -e0ond the8*)isdiction o1 )e+ional t)ial co*)ts P)ecedent a-o*nd con7).in+ the )*le that saidco*)ts have no 8*)isdiction to act on la-o) cases o) va)io*s incidents a)isin+the)e1)o.( incl*din+ the eec*tion o1 decisions( awa)ds o) o)de)sJ9!K5*)isdiction tot)0 and ad8*dicate s*ch cases pe)tains ecl*sivel0 to the p)ope) la-o) o2cialconce)ned *nde) the Depa)t.ent o1 La-o) and E.plo0.ent To hold othe)wise is tosanction split 8*)isdiction which is o-noio*s to the o)de)l0 ad.inist)ation o1 8*sticeJ99K

5*)isdiction once ac/*i)ed is not lost *pon the instance o1 the pa)ties -*t contin*es*ntil the case is te).inated avin+ esta-lished that 8*)isdiction ove) the case )estswith the Co..ission( we 7nd no +)ave a-*se o1 disc)etion on the pa)t o1

)espondent 5*d+e Ca-ato in den0in+ petitione)4s .otion 1o) the iss*ance o1 anin8*nction a+ainst the eec*tion o1 the decision o1 the National La-o) RelationsCo..ission Mo)eove)( it .*st -e noted that the Labor Code in Article 2!e"plicitly prohibits issuance of a temporary or permanent in#unction orrestraining order in any case in$ol$ing or growing out of labor disputes byany court or other entity %e"cept as otherwise pro$ided in Arts. 2&8 and2'!(.


8/12

Mo)eove)( in den0in+ petitione)4s petition 1o) in8*nction( the co*)t a /*o is .e)el0*pholdin+ the ti.eBhono)ed p)inciple that a Regional )rial Court, being a co*e+ual body of the National Labor Relations Commission, has no #urisdictionto issue any restraining order or in#unction to en#oin the e"ecution of anydecision of the latter.

-R/R( the petition 1o) ce)tio)a)i and p)ohi-ition is 1N1

19. [ G.R. No. 1'77', Oo(- 02, 2009 ]

BANGDO SENTRAL NG !ILI!INAS ONETAR# BOAR" AN" CHUCHI&ONACIER, !ETITIONERS, %S. HON. NINA G. ANTONIO%ALENUELA, IN HERCA!ACIT# AS REGIONAL TRIAL COURT JU"GE O& ANILA, BRANCH 2'RURAL BAND O& !ARAFA$UE, INC. RURAL BAND O& SAN JOSEBATANGAS, INC. RURAL BAND O& CAREN CEBU, INC. !ILI!INO RURALBAND, INC. !HILI!!INE COUNTR#SI"E RURAL BAND, INC. RURAL BAND O&CALATAGAN BATANGAS, INC. NO "#NAIC RURAL BAND RURAL BANDO& "ARBCI, INC. RURAL BAND O& DANANGA LE#TE, INC. NO &IRST

INTERSTATE RURAL BAND RURAL BAND O& BISA#AS INGLANILLA NOBAND O& EAST ASIA AN" SAN !ABLO CIT# "E%ELO!ENT BAND, INC.,RES!ON"ENTS

FACTSIn Septe.-e) o1 9%%$( the S*pe)vision and Ea.ination Depa)t.ent >SED? o1 the&ang'o (entra" ng Pi"ipinas >,SP? cond*cted ea.inations o1 the -oo@s o1 the1ollowin+ -an@s R*)al ,an@ o1 Pa)aa/*e( Inc >R,PI?( R*)al ,an@ o1 San 5ose>,atan+as?( Inc( R*)al ,an@ o1 Ca).en >Ce-*?( Inc( Pilipino R*)al ,an@( Inc(Philippine Co*nt)0side R*)al ,an@( Inc( R*)al ,an@ o1 Calata+an >,atan+as?( Inc>now D0na.ic R*)al ,an@?( R*)al ,an@ o1 Da)-ci( Inc( R*)al ,an@ o1 Qanan+a>Le0te?( Inc >now Fi)st Inte)state R*)al ,an@?( R*)al ,an@ de ,isa0as Min+lanilla

>now ,an@ o1 East Asia?( and San Pa-lo Cit0 Develop.ent ,an@( Inc Despite SEDso)de)s( the a1o)esaid -an@s 1ailed to i.ple.ent )e.edial .eas*)es especiall0 thein1*sion o1 additional capital

In 9%%'( R*)al ,an@ o1 Pa)aa/*e( Inc 7led a co.plaint 1o) n*lli7cation o1 the,an+@o Sent)al n+ Pilipinas Repo)t O1 Ea.ination with application 1o) a TRO andw)it o1 p)eli.ina)0 in8*nction -e1o)e the RTC doc@eted as Civil Case No %'B!!&9"a+ainst Ch*chi Fonacie) >OICBSED?( the ,SP( A.ado M Tetan+co( 5)( Ro.*lo L Ne)i(Vicente , Valdepenas( 5)( Ra*l A ,oncan( 5*anita D A.aton+( Al1)edo C Antonio(and Nell0 F Villa1*e)te R,PI p)a0ed that Fonacie)( he) s*-o)dinates( a+ents( o) an0othe) pe)son actin+ in he) -ehal1 -e en8oined 1)o. s*-.ittin+ the ROE o) an0si.ila) )epo)t to the Moneta)0 ,oa)d >M,?( o) i1 the ROE had al)ead0 -eens*-.itted( the M, -e en8oined 1)o. actin+ on the -asis o1 said ROE( on thealle+ation that the 1ail*)e to 1*)nish the -an@ with a cop0 o1 the ROE violated its)i+ht to d*e p)ocess

RTC 5*d+e Nina AntonioBValen3*ela +)anted the TRO The)ea1te)( othe) -an@ssepa)atel0 7led .otions 1o) consolidation o1 thei) cases in ,)anch 9' which)espondent 8*d+e +)anted and also +)anted thei) )espective p)a0e) 1o) iss*ance o1

TRO


9/12

Petitione) 7led a .otion to dis.iss all the co.plaints on the +)o*nd o1 lac@ o1 ca*seo1 action A1te) the pa)ties 7led thei) )espective .e.o)anda( the RTC( on 5*ne (9%%'( )*led that the -an@s we)e entitled to the w)its o1 p)eli.ina)0 in8*nctionp)a0ed 1o) It held that it had -een the p)actice o1 the SED to p)ovide the ROEs tothe -an@s -e1o)e s*-.ission to the M, It 1*)the) held that as the -an@s a)e the

s*-8ects o1 ea.inations( the0 a)e entitled to copies o1 the ROEs The denial -0petitione)s o1 the -an@s4 )e/*ests 1o) copies o1 the ROEs was held to -e a denial o1the -an@s4 )i+ht to d*e p)ocess

Petitione)s -)o*+ht the .atte) -e1o)e the CA via petition 1o) ce)tio)a)i *nde) R*le #6clai.in+ +)ave a-*se o1 disc)etion -*t the CA )ea2).ed the RTCs iss*ance o1 thew)it o1 p)eli.ina)0 in8*nction and when it o)de)ed the consolidation o1 the !% casesCA also held that the p)inciples o1 1ai)ness and t)anspa)enc0 dictate that the)espondent -an@s a)e entitled to copies o1 the ROE

Petitione)s )e/*ested 1o) a TRO 1)o. the SC which the latte) +)anted ,0 )eason o1the TRO iss*ed -0 the SC( the SED was a-le to s*-.it thei) ROEs to the Moneta)0

,oa)d The M, then p)ohi-ited the )espondent -an@s 1)o. t)ansactin+ -*siness andplaced the. *nde) )eceive)ship with the Philippine Deposit Ins*)ance Co)po)ationas the appointed )eceive)

ISSEHhethe) o) not the CA e))ed in not 7ndin+ that the in8*nction iss*ed -0 the )e+ionalt)ial co*)t violated section 96 o1 the new cent)al -an@ act and e=ectivel0 handc*=edthe -an+@o sent)al 1)o. discha)+in+ its 1*nctions to the +)eat and i))epa)a-leda.a+e o1 the co*nt)04s -an@in+ s0ste.

RLING The in8*nction violated the Cent)al ,an@ Act

)he re+uisites for preliminary in#uncti$e relief are3a( the in$asion of right sought to be protected is material and

substantial4b( the right of the complainant is clear and unmista5able4 andc( there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to pre$ent

serious damage.

As s*ch( a writ of preliminary in#unction may be issued only upon clearshowing of an actual e"isting right to be protected during the pendency ofthe principal action. )he twin re+uirements of a $alid in#unction are thee"istence of a right and its actual or threatened $iolations.Th*s( to -eentitled to an in8*nctive w)it( the )i+ht to -e p)otected and the violation a+ainst that)i+ht .*st -e shownJ'K

These )e/*i)e.ents a)e a-sent in the p)esent case In +)antin+ the w)its o1p)eli.ina)0 in8*nction( the t)ial co*)t held that the s*-.ission o1 the ROEs to the M,-e1o)e the )espondent -an@s wo*ld violate the )i+ht to d*e p)ocess o1 said -an@s

This is e))oneo*s


10/12

The )espondent -an@s have 1ailed to show that the0 a)e entitled to copies o1 theROEs The0 can point to no p)ovision o1 law( no section in the p)oced*)es o1 the ,SPthat shows that the ,SP is )e/*i)ed to +ive the. copies o1 the ROEs

The iss*ance -0 the RTC o1 w)its o1 p)eli.ina)0 in8*nction is an *nwa))antedinte)1e)ence with the powe)s o1 the M, Secs 9& and "% o1 RA $#6"J!%K )e1e) to the

appoint.ent o1 a conse)vato) o) a )eceive) 1o) a -an@( which is a powe) o1 the M,1o) which the0 need the ROEs done -0 the s*pe)visin+ o) ea.inin+ depa)t.ent

The writs of preliminary in#unction issued by the trial court hinder the 67from fullling its function under the law The actions of the 67*nde) Secs9& and "% o1 RA $#6" :may not be restrained or set aside by the court e"cepton petition for (-*o--* on the ground that the action ta5en was in e"cessof #urisdiction or with such gra$e abuse of discretion as to amount to lac5or e"cess of #urisdiction.9The w)its o1 p)eli.ina)0 in8*nction o)de) a)e p)ecisel0what cannot -e done *nde) the law -0 p)eventin+ the M, 1)o. ta@in+ action *nde)eithe) Sec 9& o) Sec "% o1 RA $#6"

As to the thi)d )e/*i)e.ent( the )espondent -an@s have shown no necessit0 1o) the

w)it o1 p)eli.ina)0 in8*nction to p)event se)io*s da.a+e The se)io*s da.a+econte.plated -0 the t)ial co*)t was the possi-ilit0 o1 the i.position o1 sanctions*pon )espondent -an@s( even the sanction o1 clos*)e nde) the law( the sanction o1clos*)e co*ld -e i.posed *pon a -an@ -0 the ,SP even witho*t notice and hea)in+

The )espondent -an@s cannotBBth)o*+h see@in+ a w)it o1 p)eli.ina)0 in8*nction -0appealin+ to lac@ o1 d*e p)ocess( in a )o*nda-o*t .anne)BB p)event thei) clos*)e -0the M, Thei) )e.ed0( as stated( is a s*-se/*ent one( which will dete).ine whethe)the clos*)e o1 the -an@ was attended -0 +)ave a-*se o1 disc)etion 5*dicial )eviewente)s the pict*)e onl0 a1te) the M, has ta@en action it cannot p)event s*ch action-0 the M, )he threat of the imposition of sanctions, e$en that of closure,does not $iolate their right to due process, and cannot be the basis for awrit of preliminary in#unction.

The )espondent -an@s have 1ailed to show thei) entitle.ent to the w)it o1p)eli.ina)0 in8*nction It .*st -e e.phasi3ed that an application for in#uncti$erelief is construed strictly against the pleader.:!KThe )espondent -an@scannot )el0 on a si.ple appeal to p)oced*)al d*e p)ocess to p)ove entitle.ent The)e/*i)e.ents 1o) the iss*ance o1 the w)it have not -een p)oved No invasion o1 the)i+hts o1 )espondent -an@s has -een shown( no) is thei) )i+ht to copies o1 the ROEsclea) and *n.ista@a-le The)e is also no necessit0 1o) the w)it to p)event se)io*sda.a+e Indeed the iss*ance o1 the w)it o1 p)eli.ina)0 in8*nction t)a.ples *pon thepowe)s o1 the M, and p)events it 1)o. 1*l7llin+ its 1*nctions The)e is no )i+ht thatthe w)it o1 p)eli.ina)0 in8*nction wo*ld p)otect in this pa)tic*la) case n theabsence of a clear legal right, the issuance of the in#uncti$e writconstitutes gra$e abuse of discretion.J!6K In the a-sence o1 p)oo1 o1 a le+al)i+ht and the in8*)0 s*stained -0 the plainti=( an o)de) 1o) the iss*ance o1 a w)it o1p)eli.ina)0 in8*nction will -e n*lli7edJ!#K

The grant of a preliminary in#unction in a case rests on the sounddiscretion of the court with the ca$eat that it should be made with great


11/12

cautionJ!$KTh*s( the iss*ance o1 the w)it o1 p)eli.ina)0 in8*nction .*st have-asis in and -e in acco)dance with law

All told( while the +)ant o) denial o1 an in8*nction +ene)all0 )ests on the so*nddisc)etion o1 the lowe) co*)t( this Co*)t .a0 and sho*ld inte)vene in a clea) case o1a-*seJ!'K

-R/R( the petition is he)e-0 ;RAN)1

20. [ G.R. No. L66321, Oo(- 31, 19' ]TRA"ERS RO#AL BAND, !ETITIONER, %S. THE HON. INTERE"IATEA!!ELLATE COURT, HON. JESUS R. "E %EGA, AS !RESI"ING JU"GE O& THEREGIONAL TRIAL COURT, THIR"JU"ICIAL REGION, BRANCH I, ALOLOS, BULACAN, LA TON"EFA, INC.,%ICTORINO !. E%ANGELISTA, IN HIS CA!ACIT# AS EO&ICIO !RO%INCIALSHERI&& O& BULACAN, AN"OR AN# AN" ALL HIS "E!UTIES,RES!ON"ENTS.

FACTSIn Ma)ch !&'"( T)ade)s Ro0al ,an@ instit*ted a s*it a+ainst the Re.co AlcoholDistille)0( Inc 1o) the )ecove)0 o1 the s*. o1 P9("'9(96'$! and o-tainin+ a w)it o1p)eli.ina)0 attach.ent di)ected a+ainst the assets and p)ope)ties o1 Re.co AlcoholDistille)0( Inc

P*)s*ant to said w)it o1 attach.ent iss*ed Dep*t0 She)i= Edil-e)to Santia+o levieda.on+ othe)s a-o*t (#%% -a))els o1 a+ed o) )ecti7ed alcohol 1o*nd within thep)e.ises o1 said Re.co Distille)0 Inc

A thi)d pa)t0 clai. was 7led with the Dep*t0 She)i= -0 he)ein )espondent LaTondea( Inc on Ap)il !( !&'9 clai.in+ owne)ship ove) said attached p)ope)t0

La Tondena 7led a Motion to Hithd)aw the alcohol and .olasses 1)o. the Re.coDistille)t0 Plant which the RTC +)anted oweve)( RTC )econside)ed its )*lin+ -0decla)in+ that the alcohol which was not withd)awn )e.ains in the owne)ship o1Re.co and it denied La Tondenas .otion to inte)vene The)ea1te)( La Tondea Incinstit*ted -e1o)e the RTC ,)anch I


12/12

ann*l and set aside the O)de) dated Septe.-e) 9'( !&'" o1 the )espondentRe+ional T)ial Co*)t o1 Malolos( ,*lacan( ,)anch Ier rent courts of coordinate #urisdiction and to bringabout a harmonious and smooth functioning of their proceedings.

-R/R( the instant petition is he)e-0 dis.issed and the decision o1 theInte).ediate Appellate Co*)t in ACBGR No SPB%!'#% is a2).ed( with costs a+ainstpetitione) T)ade)s Ro0al ,an@

provisional remedies case digests

Documents