Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS v

HON JOSE ALIGAEN

FACTS:
1. Respondent Jose Belo filed with the CFI of Capiz, presided by
Judge Aligaen a verified petition captioned injunction with
Preliminary Injunction naming as respondents therein Director of
Bureau of Telecommunications with station in Iloilo City and their
agents acting in their behalf, Chief Operator Alagbay of BOT in
Roxas City.
Belo contended that he was granted a franchise to operate
a telephone system in Roxas and in Capiz.
BOTe started to establish, maintain and operate in the
same geographical area of Roxas City another local
telephone system which would directly compete with and
prejudice the telephone system he already established.
2. Judge Aligaen entered an order authorizing the issuance of writ
of preliminary injunction upon Belos posting a bond and
accordingly the writ was issued. It restrained therein respondents
from further establishing and operating the telephone lines.
3. Belo filed with the CFI of Capiz an urgent motion to declare
Alagbay and his agents in contempt of court because despite of
the injunction they continued the work of installing the new
telephone system in Roxas. The complaint was amended to
include the Director of Bureau of Telecommunications and the
Regional Director.
4. DBT then filed a joint motion for dissolution of the writ of
injunction, offering to put up a counterbond in the sum of
P20000.
5. After the CFIs denial of the MTD filed by the DBT, et al, DBT filed
petition for a writ of certiorari and prohibition with preliminary
injunction praying that pending the determination of the case on
the merits, a writ of preliminary injunction be issued ex parte and
without bond, restraining Judge Aligaen, from enforcing the ff: (1)
Writ of preliminary injunction; (2) Order holding Alagbay and his
agents in contempt.
6. The writ was granted.
7. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

(1) W/N respondent court has no jurisdiction to issue writs


of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus and injunction
requiring the execution of acts by or controlling the acts
of national officials with residences and offices beyond
its territorial jurisdiction.
(2) W/N the CFI can issue the writ of preliminary injunction
ex parte
(3) W/N the writ of preliminary injunction can be dissolved
upon posting of a counter bond.

HELD:
1. YES. THE ISSUANCE OF WIRT OF PRELIMINARY IN
JUNCTION IS WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF
THE CFI OF CAPIZ. CFI of Capiz has jurisdiction to issue the writ
of preliminary injunction. In the instant case, the acts relative to
the establishment of a local telephone system by petitioners
were being done within the territorial boundaries of the province
or district of respondent court, and so said court had jurisdiction
to restrain them by injunction. It does not matter that some of
the respondents in the trial court, against whom the injunctive
order was issued, had their official residences outside the
territorial jurisdiction of the trial court.
Since the acts to be restrained were being done in Roxas
City, or within the territorial jurisdiction of respondent
court, the latter had jurisdiction to restrain said acts even if
the office of respondent Director of the Bureau of
Telecommunications is in Manila and the office of the
Regional Superintendent is in Iloilo City.

2. YES. BELO IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF. The SC ruled that the


complaint does not state a cause of action. However, it cannot
stop the CFI to exercise its sound discretion whether or not to
issue the said writ. Belo is entitled to the relief demanded, when
it said "that the continuance of the acts complained of would
work serious and irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner
unless restrained." The respondent court considered it necessary
to issue the writ because the continuance of the acts of installing
the new telephone system by the respondents below (petitioners
herein) would render the judgment in the petition for injunction
ineffectual.
The petitioners could go on with the work on the
installation of the national hook-up, but not to establish
another local telephone system. The idea of respondent
court, as gathered from its order authorizing the issuance
of the writ, was to prevent the competition between the
new telephone system and the system already operated by
respondent Belo.
The petitioners herein did not act in accordance with the
law. They never attempted to negotiate with him for the
use of facilities of his local telephone system in conjunction
with the Bureaus national hook-up project.
3. NO. THE MERE FILING OF A COUNTERBOND DOES NOT
NECESSARILY WARRANT THE DISSOLUTION OF THE WRIT
OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.An injunction issued to stop
an unauthorized act should not be dissolved by the mere
filing of a counterbond, otherwise, the counterbond
would become the vehicle of the commission or
continuance of an unauthorized or illegal act which the
injunction precisely is intended to prevent.
Under Section 6 of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, a
preliminary injunction, if granted, may be dissolved "if it
appears after hearing that although the plaintiff is entitled
to the injunction, the continuance thereof, as the case may
be, would cause great damage to the defendant while the
plaintiff can be fully compensated for such damages as he
may suff r, and the defendant files a bond in an amount
fixed by the judge conditioned that he will pay all damages
which the plaintiff may suffer by the dissolution of the
injunction.
The court is called upon to exercise Its discretion in
determining or weighing the relative damages that may be
suffered by the parties. If the damages that may be
suffered by the defendant by the continuance of the
injunction outweigh the damages that may be suffered by
the plaintiff by the dissolution of the injunction, then the
injunction should be dissolved
In the case at bar, CFI in refusing to dissolve the writ, took
into consideration that Belo will suffer great and
irreparable injury considering his tremendous investment
and efforts to put up telephone service in Roxas.