G.R. No.

175145 March 28, 2008

SPOUSES ALFREDO and SHRLE! !AP vs. N"ERNA"ONAL E#$HANGE %AN& G.R. No.
175145 March 28, 2008'
Fac()* The question is: Under the circumstances obtaining in this case, may the trial court recall
and dissolve the preliminary injunction it issued despite the rulings of the Court of Appeals and by
this Court that its issuance was not tainted with grave abuse of discretion
!e hold that the trial court may still order the dissolution of the preliminary injunction it previously
issued. !e do not agree with petitioners" argument that the trial court may no longer dissolve the
preliminary injunction because this Court previously ruled that its issuance was not tainted with
grave abuse of discretion.
The issuance of a preliminary injunction is di#erent from its dissolution. $ts issuance is governed by
%ection &,
&'
(ule )' of the *++, (ules of Civil -rocedure while the grounds for its dissolution are
contained in %ection ., (ule )' of the *++, (ules of Civil -rocedure. As long as the party see/ing
the dissolution of the preliminary injunction can prove the presence of any of the grounds for its
dissolution, same may be dissolved notwithstanding that this Court previously ruled that its
issuance was not tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
%ection . of (ule )' reads:
%ection .. 0rounds for objection to, or for motion of dissolution of, injunction or restraining order. 1
The application for injunction or restraining order may be denied, upon a showing of its
insu2ciency. The injunction or restraining order may also be denied, or, if granted, may be
dissolved, on other grounds upon a2davits of the party or person enjoined, which may be opposed
by the applicant also by a2davits. $t may further be denied, or, if granted, may be dissolved, if it
appears after hearing that although the applicant is entitled to the injunction or restraining order,
the issuance or continuance thereof, as the case may be, would cause irreparable damage to the
party or person enjoined while the applicant can be fully compensated for such damages as he may
su#er, and the former 3les a bond in an amount 34ed by the court conditioned that he will pay all
damages which the applicant may su#er by the denial or the dissolution of the injunction or
restraining order. $f it appears that the e4tent of the preliminary injunction or restraining order
granted is too great, it may be modi3ed.
Under the afore5quoted section, a preliminary injunction may be dissolved if it appears after hearing
that although the applicant is entitled to the injunction or restraining order, the issuance or
continuance thereof, as the case may be, would cause irreparable damage to the party or person
enjoined while the applicant can be fully compensated for such damages as he may su#er, and the
former 3les a bond in an amount 34ed by the court on condition that he will pay all damages which
the applicant may su#er by the denial or the dissolution of the injunction or restraining order. Two
conditions must concur: 3rst, the court in the e4ercise of its discretion, 3nds that the continuance of
the injunction would cause great damage to the defendant, while the plainti# can be fully
compensated for such damages as he may su#er6 second, the defendant 3les a counter5bond.
&+
The
7rder of the trial court dated 8+ April 899. is based on this ground.
$n the case at bar, the trial court, after hearing, found that respondents duly showed that they
would su#er great and irreparable injury if the injunction shall continue to e4ist. As to the second
condition, the trial court li/ewise found that respondents were willing to post a counter5bond which
could cover the damages that petitioners may su#er in case the judgment turns out to be adverse
to them. The 7rder of the trial court to recall and dissolve the preliminary injunction is subject to
the 3ling and approval of the counter5bond that it ordered. :ailure to post the required counter5bond
will necessarily lead to the non5dissolution of the preliminary injunction. The 7rder of ;issolution
cannot be implemented until and unless the required counter5bond has been posted.
The well5/nown rule is that the matter of issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is addressed to
the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, and its action shall not be disturbed on appeal unless
it is demonstrated that it acted without jurisdiction or in e4cess of jurisdiction or, otherwise, in
grave abuse of discretion. <y the same to/en, the court that issued such a preliminary relief may
recall or dissolve the writ as the circumstances may warrant.
=9
$n the case on hand, the trial court
issued the order of dissolution on a ground provided for by the (ules of Court. The same being in
accordance with the rules, we 3nd no reason to disturb the same.