Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

1

Rule 58 manifested their willingness to post a bond as the court a quo


PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION may fix in its discretion, to answer for whatever damages PNB
may sustain for the reason of the restraining order or injunction, if
PURPOSE OF THE WRIT finally determined that they are not entitled thereto.
RTC denied the prayer for the issuance of the TRO. RTC ruled that
RJVRD and RBN failed to prove that they have clear right to restrain
PNB vs. RJ Ventures (2006)
the foreclosure of the Buendia Property. Also, the evidence failed to
prove that they will suffer "irreparable injury" if the foreclosure of the
RJ Ventures Realty & Devt Corp. and Rajah Broadcasting Network
Buendia Property is not enjoined, for under the law, they have 1 year
Inc. filed a Complaint for Injunction with Prayer for Issuance of
from the date of the registration of the sale with the ROD within which
Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction4
to redeem the Buendia Property; thus, they will have a chance to
against PNB and Juan S. Baun, Jr.
recover the ownership thereof by way of redemption.
In their Complaint, they contended that on 13 Jun 1996, First
2 Mar 99: Buendia Property was sold in public auction. It was sold
Womens Credit Corp. received an invitation to bid from PNB anent the
to PNB for P2.8B.
sale of an 8,000 sqm property (Buendia Property).
3 May: RBN received Notice of Extrajudicial Sale from PNB,
10 Jul: FWCC bid the amount of P455k per sqm or total of P3.640B.
specifying that the property covered by the Broadcasting Equipment
Pursuant to PNB Rules, it deposited 10% of the offered price or P364M
Inventory will be sold for cash at public auction.
with PNB by way of 2 checks. The next day, FWCC submitted a revised
4 May: RJVRD and RBN filed an Urgent Application for Issuance of
offer increasing its bid by P5k per sqm or a total add amount of P40M.
a TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
In view of this, it deposited with PNB an additional amount of P4M.
7 May: RTC issued an order, granting the Writ of Preliminary
17 Jul: FWCC was awarded the Buendia Property.
Injunction, enjoining PNB from foreclosing all collaterals pledged or
24 Jul: FWCC requested PNB to finance the entire balance of the
mortgaged by RJVRD and RBN to PNB after the posting of a bond in
purchase price.
the amount of P5M. It ruled that the right of PNB to foreclose the
17 Sep: FWCC assigned all its rights, claims, interest, and title over
chattel mortgages is still challenged by RJVRD and RBN, and therefore,
the Buendia Property to RJVRD. The latter assumed the right to
is not yet clearly established. Hence, if PNB is allowed to foreclose the
purchase the Buendia Property and the obligations of FWCC to PNB
subject chattel mortgages, the determination of the right of PNB to
on the balance of the purchase price.
foreclose the subject properties will become moot and academic.
However, PNB refused to finance the entire balance of the purchase
28 May: A Writ of Preliminary Injunction was issued. PNB filed MR.
price except to the extent of 75% thereof. But it finally agreed to grant
28 Jul: RTC issued Order, granting PNBs MR. In lifting the writ, RTC
a loan to RJVRD to 80% of the purchase price, P2.944B. This grant
rationalized that the failure of RBN to pay 3 credit facilities it obtained
was conditioned on the deposit by RJVRD with PNB of an additional
from PNB was established. Thus, RBN was considered to have
10% of the purchase price to the first 10% downpayment which the
effectively defaulted on its loan obligations.
former had paid. Otherwise stated, RJ Ventures was required to raise
RJVRD and RBN filed MR. RTC denied. Filed a petition for certiorari.
an additional amount of P368M.
CA granted the Writ.
30 Sep: Following the payment by RJVRD to PNB of the additional
PNBs contention: RBN failed to produce any evidence to
deposit of P368M, the parties entered into a loan agreement wherein
substantiate and support its claim that it is entitled to the Writ of
PNB will finance the balance of the purchase price in the amount of
Preliminary Injunction in order to enjoin PNB from foreclosing on the
P2.944B subject to conditions that after the transfer of the Buendia
subject chattels. PNB was able to show that RBN failed without
Property in the name of RJVRD, the same shall be mortgaged in favor
justifiable cause or reason to service the credit facilities extended to it.
of PNB. RJVRD and PNB executed a Loan Agreement. A Deed of Sale
RBN has no clear right in esse; therefore, it cannot seek relief from the
and a Real Estate Mortgage were similarly executed between RJVRD
court. PNB claimed that they were able to prove irreparable damage
and PNB over the Buendia Property.
to the bank if PNB will be enjoined from foreclosing on the chattel
RJVRD undertook to engage foreign investors for the project.
mortgages.
However, the Asian currency crisis caused a depreciation of the PH
RJVRDs contention: Irreparable damage would be caused to RBN
Peso which increased the obligation of RJVRD to PNB from P2.944B
if PNB is allowed to foreclose its equipment. It would also disrupt, if
to P5,405,301,470.82.
not, paralyze, the operations of RBN's stations. There is no reason to
30 Sep 97: RJVRD entered into a JVA with Fil-Estate Management
disturb the injunction issued by the court absent a showing of manifest
Inc. for the development of the Buendia Property. RBN secured
abuse.
another loan from PNB for P100M, part of which was used in paying
the interest for the loan it had secured in favor of RJVRD. By way of
ISSUE: WON RJVRD and RBN is entitled to a writ of preliminary
security, RBN assigned in favor of PNB, all its rights and interest over
injunction
radio and TV frequencies issued by NTC.
Mar 98: RJVRD, RBN and PNB entered into discussions on the
Yes. A preliminary injunction is merely a provisional remedy, adjunct
restructuring of the loans. While this was ongoing, the accounts of
to the main case subject to the latter's outcome. It is not a cause of
RJVRD and RBN became delinquent. PNB sent RJVRD a notice
action in itself. The sole object of a preliminary injunction is to maintain
declaring their accounts delinquent and demanding settlement.
the status quo until the merits can be heard. A preliminary injunction
25 Jan 99: PNB sent RBN a demand letter, requiring it to settle
is an order granted at any stage of an action prior to judgment of final
their outstanding account of P841,460,891.91. In same letter, PNB
order, requiring a party, court, agency, or person to refrain from a
demanded from RJVRD the settlement of its obligation of
particular act or acts. It is a preservative remedy to ensure the
P5,405,301,470.82. This surprised RBN, considering that they still
protection of a party's substantive rights or interests pending the final
continuing their negotiations with PNB for the restructuring of the loan.
judgment in the principal action. A plea for an injunctive writ lies upon
18 Feb: PNB demanded that RBN turn over the possession and
the existence of a claimed emergency or extraordinary situation which
control of Broadcasting Equipment Inventory. Also, RJVRD received a
should be avoided for otherwise, the outcome of a litigation would be
Notice of Extrajudicial Sale for the sale of the Buendia Property.
useless as far as the party applying for the writ is concerned.
In support of its Application for the Issuance of a TRO and a Writ of
For a Writ of Preliminary Injunction to issue, the following requisites
Preliminary Injunction, RJVRD and RBN alleged that they would suffer
must be present, to wit: (1) the existence of a clear and unmistakable
great and irreparable injury by the extrajudicial foreclosure of the
right that must be protected, and (2) an urgent and paramount
property and the take over of RBN's radio facilities in Baguio, unless a
necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. Indubitably, the very
TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction is issued enjoining PNB
foundation of the jurisdiction to issue a writ of injunction rests in the
from implementing the Notice of Extrajudicial Sale dated 1 Feb 1999,
existence of a cause of action and in the probability of irreparable
and enjoining PNB from taking possession and control of RBN's radio
injury, inadequacy of pecuniary compensation and the prevention of
facilities in Baguio City. They maintained that the commission or
multiplicity of suits. The grant or denial of a writ of preliminary
continuance of the acts complained of during the litigation or the non-
injunction in a pending case rests in the sound discretion of the court
performance thereof would work injustice to RJVRD and RBN. They
taking cognizance of the case since the assessment and evaluation of
2

evidence towards that end involve findings of facts left to the said However, the sale at public auction was thrust aside in view
court for its conclusive determination. Hence, the exercise of of the dacion en pago which Sps. Camacho executed in favor of
judicial discretion by a court in injunctive matters must not be First Global. A TCT was issued in the name of First Global.
interfered with except when there is grave abuse of discretion. Grave 8 Sep 97: First Global demanded rentals from Agustin for the
abuse of discretion in the issuance of writs of preliminary injunction latters use of the subject property. When First Globals demand was
implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment that is unheeded, it filed a motion for issuance of a writ of possession.
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or where the power is exercised in an 20 Nov: Agustin filed a motion for intervention, wherein he asked for
arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice or the rescission of the DOAS, dacion en pago and cancellation of First
personal aversion amounting to an evasion of positive duty or to a Globals title over the subject property.
virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act at all in Agustin filed a separate complaint for rescission of the deed of
contemplation of law. absolute sale, annulment of the dacion en pago and cancellation of
In the case at bar, RJVRD and RBN were able to establish a clear title and issuance of a new title with prayer for the issuance of a
and unmistakable right to the possession of the subject collaterals. temporary restraining order and/or a writ of injunction against First
Evidently, as owner of the subject collaterals that stand to be Global, seeking to enjoin the latter from taking possession of the
extrajudicially foreclosed, they are entitled to the possession and subject property.
protection thereof. RBN as the owner and operator of the subject radio RTC denied the application of Agustin for preliminary injunction. CA,
equipment and radio stations have a clear right over them. however, reversed the RTC and granted the injunctive relief.
PNBs claim that they have lost their rights to the subject collaterals Agustins contention: First Global failed to show a clear right to
in the face of their admission of default is best threshed out in a full- possess it. To dispossess him pendente lite would be clearly unjust.
blown trial a quo where the merits of the case can be tried and
determined. ISSUE: WON Agustin is entitled to the possession of the property while
Secondly, there is an urgent and paramount necessity to prevent the main case for rescission is pending with RTC
serious damage. Indeed, an injunctive remedy may only be resorted to
when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences Yes. A preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy that a party
which cannot be remedied under any standard compensation. may resort to in order to preserve and protect certain rights and
The term irreparable injury has a definite meaning in law. It does interests during the pendency of an action. It is issued to preserve the
not have reference to the amount of damages that may be caused but status quo ante -- the last actual, peaceful, and uncontested status that
rather to the difficulty of measuring the damages inflicted. If full preceded the actual controversy.
compensation can be obtained by way of damages, equity will not A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action
apply the remedy of injunction. prior to final judgment, requiring a person to refrain from a particular
In the present case, CA declared that the evidence adduced by act. It may be granted at any time after the commencement of the
RJVRD and RBN more than satisfies the legal and jurisprudential action and before final judgment, when it is established that the
requirements of irreparable injury. It behooves this court to appreciate plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of
the unique character of the collaterals that stand to be affected should such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of
the Writ of Preliminary Injunction be dissolved as PNB would have it. the acts complained of, or in the performance of an act or acts, either
The direct and inevitable result would be the stoppage of the for a limited period or perpetually; that the commission or continuance
operations of respondents' radio stations, consequently, losing its of some act complained of during the litigation or the non-
listenership, and tarnishing the image that it has built over time. It does performance thereof would probably work injustice to the plaintiff; or
not stretch one's imagination to see that the cost of a destroyed image that the defendant is doing, threatens, or is about to do, or is procuring
is significantly the loss of its good name and reputation. The value of or suffering to be done, some act probably in violation of the plaintiff's
a radio station's image and reputation are not quantifiable in terms of rights respecting the subject of the action, and tending to render the
monetary value. judgment ineffectual.
A preliminary injunction is merely temporary, subject to the final
STATUS QUO ANTE disposition of the principal action and its purpose is to preserve the
status quo of the things subject of the action and/or the relation
First Global Realty vs. Agustin (2002) between the parties, in order to protect the right of the plaintiff
respecting the subject of the action during the pendency of the suit.
1994: A parcel of land was sold to Sps. Camacho for P2.5M. Otherwise or if no preliminary injunction were issued, the defendant
Sps. Camacho succeeded in convincing Agustin to accept a partial may, before final judgment, do or continue the doing of the act which
payment of P100k upon the execution of a DOAS in their favor over the plaintiff asks the court to restrain, and thus make ineffectual the
the subject property. The balance of P2.4M would be paid once the final judgment rendered afterwards granting the relief sought by the
title over the same was transferred in the name of Sps. Camacho. This plaintiff. Its issuance rests entirely within the discretion of the court
agreement came about because Sps. Camacho would use the subject taking cognizance of the case and is generally not interfered with
property to raise the amount of P2.4M, that is to say, they would secure except in cases of manifest abuse.
a loan from a bank or financial institution with the subject property as The purpose of a preliminary injunction, then, is "to prevent
collateral. threatened or continuous irremediable injury to some of the parties
24 May 94: DBP released the subject property to Agustin upon full before their claims can be thoroughly studied and adjudicated. Its sole
payment of the latters outstanding loan. Thereafter, DOS in favor of aim is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be
Sps. Camacho was executed, who in turn paid P100k. heard fully. Thus, it will be issued only upon a showing of a clear and
26 May 94: TCT No. 194868 was issued in the name Sps. Camacho. unmistakable right that is violated. Moreover, an urgent and
First Global granted Sps. Camachos loan application with the permanent necessity for its issuance must be shown by the applicant.
subject property as collateral, in the amount of P1.190M. However, In the present case, the status quo that is sought to be preserved is
despite receipt of the loan and Agustins demand to pay the balance the possession of the property by Agustin and his right to use it as his
of the purchase price of the subject property, Sps. Camacho did not dwelling, pending determination of whether or not he had indeed sold
pay the same. it to the Camachos and, consequently, whether the latters transfer of
Agustin filed a criminal complaint for estafa against Sps. Camacho. its ownership to petitioner via dacion en pago should be upheld.
Unfortunately, the case did not prosper because Sps. Camacho could Ca found that First Global was aware that Agustin remained an
not be located for the proper service of the warrant of arrest. unpaid seller, when it conducted an on-site investigation of the
Agustin, then, discovered that First Global filed a special civil action property in connection with the couples application for a loan. First
for the foreclosure of the subject property inasmuch as Sps. Camacho Global learned that Agustin was living in the subject premises and was
defaulted in the payment of their loan obligation. thus in actual possession of it.
28 Jun 96: Branch 143 ordered the foreclosure of the subject Moreover, the records show that the dacion en pago signed in 1994
property and the subsequent sale at public auction. Sps. Camacho did was registered only in 1997. It was executed in lieu of the foreclosure
not file MR. Hence, First Globals motion for execution was granted. of the property when the Camachos failed to pay their loan obligations.
3

The amount stated in the dacion as consideration was the functions will result in a charge or financial liability against the
P1,190,000 loan that they had obtained from First Global. It is government. In the first case, the Constitution itself assures the
therefore strange that the couple would buy a parcel of land for P2.5M availability of judicial review, and it is the official concerned who should
to obtain a loan to help finance payment for the same, and finally cede be impleaded as the proper party.
the same property for an amount much lower than that for which they In its complaint, Pharmawealth sufficiently imputes grave abuse of
purchased it. Moreover, by executing a dacion, the sellers effectively discretion against petitioners in their official capacity. Since judicial
waived the redemption period normally given a mortgagor. review of acts alleged to have been tainted with grave abuse of
Therefore, Agustin was able to show a prima facie right to the relief discretion is guaranteed by the Constitution, it necessarily follows that
demanded in his Complaint. The Camachos nonpayment of the it is the official concerned who should be impleaded as defendant or
purchase price agreed upon and the irregularities surrounding the respondent in an appropriate suit
dacion en pago are serious enough to allow him to possess the Moreover, part of the reliefs prayed for by Pharmawealth is the
property pendente lite. enjoinment of the implementation, as well as the nullification of the
In addition, Agustin has shown that to allow First Global to take award to YSS, the grant of which may not be enforced against
immediate possession of the property would result in grave injustice. individual petitioners and their successors except in their official
It must be noted that the ownership of the property, the validity of the capacities as officials of the DOH.
sale between Agustin and the Camachos and the legitimacy of the As regards DOH, the defense of immunity from suit will not avail
dacion en pago executed by the latter in favor of First Global are still despite its being an unincorporated agency of the government, for the
subject to determination in the court below. Furthermore, there is no only causes of action directed against it are preliminary injunction and
question that Agustinhas been in possession of the premises during mandamus. Under Section 1, Rule 58, preliminary injunction may be
all this time -- prior to and during the institution of the Complaint. He directed against a party or a court, agency or a person. Moreover, the
and his family have long owned, possessed and occupied it as their defense of state immunity from suit does not apply in causes of action
family home since 1967. To dispossess him of it now would definitely which do not seek to impose a charge or financial liability against the
alter the status quo to their detriment. State.
As regards individual petitioners suability for damages, the
SECTION 1 following discussion on the applicability of the defense of state
immunity from suit is relevant.
DOH vs. Phil. Pharmawealth (2007) The rule that a state may not be sued without its consent, now
embodied in Section 3, Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution, is one of
Phil. Pharmawealth, Inc. is a domestic corporation engaged in the the generally accepted principles of international law, which we have
business of manufacturing and supplying pharmaceutical products to now adopted as part of the law of the land.
government hospitals in the Philippines. While the doctrine of state immunity appears to prohibit only suits
22 Dec 98: Secretary of Health Romualdez, Jr. issued AO No. 27, s. against the state without its consent, it is also applicable to complaints
1998, outlining the guidelines and procedures on the accreditation of filed against officials of the state for acts allegedly performed by them
government suppliers for pharmaceutical products. in the discharge of their duties. The suit is regarded as one against the
AO No. 27 was later amended by AO No. 10, s. 2000, providing for state where satisfaction of the judgment against the officials will
additional guidelines for accreditation of drug suppliers aimed at require the state itself to perform a positive act, such as the
ensuring that only qualified bidders can transact business with DOH. appropriation of the amount necessary to pay the damages awarded
It provided that only products accredited by the Committee shall be against them.
allowed to be procured by the DOH and all other entities under its However, the rule does not apply where the public official is charged
jurisdiction. in his official capacity for acts that are unauthorized or unlawful and
9 and 29 May 2000: Phil. Pharmawealth submitted to DOH a injurious to the rights of others. Neither does it apply where the public
request for the inclusion of additional items in its list of accredited official is clearly being sued not in his official capacity but in his
drug products, including the antibiotic "Penicillin G Benzathine." Based personal capacity, although the acts complained of may have been
on the schedule provided by DOH, it appears that processing of and committed while he occupied a public position.
release of the result of Phil. Pharmawealth request were due on Sep In the present case, suing individual petitioners in their personal
2000, the last month of the quarter following the date of its filing. capacities for damages in connection with their alleged act of "illegally
Sep 2000: DOH, through Lopez, issued an Invitation for Bids for the abusing their official positions to make sure that Pharmawealth would
procurement of 1.2M units vials of Penicillin G Benzathine. not be awarded the Benzathine contract which act was done in bad
Phil. Pharmawealth submitted its bid for the Penicillin G Benzathine faith and with full knowledge of the limits and breadth of their powers
contract. When the bids were opened on 11 Oct 2000, only two given by law" is permissible, in consonance with the foregoing
companies participated, with Phil. Pharmawealth submitting the lower principles. For an officer who exceeds the power conferred on him by
bid at P82.24/unit, compared to Cathay/YSS Laboratories bid of law cannot hide behind the plea of sovereign immunity and must bear
P95.00/unit. In view, however, of the non-accreditation of Phil. the liability personally.
Pharmawealths Penicillin G Benzathine product, the contract was It bears stressing, however, that the statements in the immediately
awarded to YSS. foregoing paragraph in no way reflect a ruling on the actual liability of
Phil. Pharmawealth filed a complaint for injunction, mandamus and petitioners to Pharmawealth. The mere allegation that a government
damages with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction official is being sued in his personal capacity does not automatically
and/or TRO, praying that the RTC nullify the award of the Penicillin G remove the same from the protection of the doctrine of state immunity.
Benzathine contract to YSS Laboratories, and direct DOH, Romualdez, Neither, upon the other hand, does the mere invocation of official
Galon and Lopez to declare Pharmawealth as the lowest complying character suffice to insulate such official from suability and liability for
responsible bidder for the Benzathine contract, among others. an act committed without or in excess of his or her authority. These
DOH filed Manifestation and Motion to dismiss, praying for the are matters of evidence which should be presented and proven at the
outright dismissal of the complaint based on the doctrine of state trial.
immunity.
Phil. Pharmawealths contention: The doctrine of state immunity is Levi Strauss vs. Clinton Apparelle (2005)
not applicable considering that individual petitioners are being sued
both in their official and personal capacities, hence, they, not the state, A complaint for trademark infringement, injunction and damages
would be liable for damages. was filed by Levi Strauss against Clinton Apparelle.
Levi Strauss is the owner by prior adoption and use since 1986 of
ISSUE: WON the non-suability of the state applies in this case the internationally famous Dockers and Design trademark. In the
Philippines, it has a Certificate of Registration No. 46619 in the
No. The suability of a government official depends on whether the Principal Register for use of said trademark on pants, shirts, blouses,
official concerned was acting within his official or jurisdictional skirts, shorts, sweatshirts and jackets under Class 25.
capacity, and whether the acts done in the performance of official
4

Levi Strauss discovered the presence in the local market of issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is addressed to the
jeans under the brand name "Paddocks" using a device which is sound discretion of the trial court, this discretion must be
substantially, if not exactly, similar to the "Dockers and Design" exercised based upon the grounds and in the manner provided by law.
trademark owned by and registered in the name of LS & Co., without The exercise of discretion by the trial court in injunctive matters is
its consent. Based on their information and belief, Clinton Apparelle generally not interfered with save in cases of manifest abuse. And to
manufactured and continues to manufacture such "Paddocks" jeans determine whether there was abuse of discretion, a scrutiny must be
and other apparel. made of the bases, if any, considered by the trial court in granting
RTC issued an order setting the prayer for the issuance of a TRO for injunctive relief. Be it stressed that injunction is the strong arm of
hearing on 5 May 1998. On said date, Clinton Apparelle failed to equity which must be issued with great caution and deliberation, and
appear despite notice and Olympian Garments, the other defendant, only in cases of great injury where there is no commensurate remedy
had yet to be notified. Hearing was rescheduled on 14 May 1998. On in damages.
said hearing, both defendants failed to appear. Clinton Apparelle In the present case, we find that there was scant justification for the
claimed that it was not notified of such hearing. Only Olympian issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction.
Garments allegedly had been issued with summons. Despite the Levi Strauss anchor their legal right to "Dockers and Design"
absence of the defendants, the hearing on the application for the trademark on the Certificate of Registration issued in their favor by the
issuance of a TRO continued. Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer. This
RTC granted the TRO applied for. The hearing for the issuance of a Certificate of Registration is prima facie evidence of the validity of the
writ of preliminary injunction was set on 26 May 1998, which setting registration, the registrants ownership of the mark and of the exclusive
cannot be transferred considering that the lifetime of the TRO is only right to use the same in connection with the goods or services and
20 days from date of grant. those that are related thereto specified in the certificate. The owner is
4 Jun 98: RTC granted the writ of preliminary injunction. It ordered also granted the exclusive right to prevent all third parties not having
that payment of P2.5M as injunction bond. the owners consent from using in the course of trade identical or
Clinton Apparelle filed MTD and MR of the order granting the writ of similar signs for goods or services which are identical or similar to
preliminary injunction. Meantime, RTC issued an order approving the those in respect of which the trademark is registered if such use results
bond filed by Levi Strauss. Subsequently, RTC denied the MTD and in a likelihood of confusion.
MR, and the writ of preliminary injunction was issued on 8 Oct 98. However, attention should be given to the fact that Levi Strauss
Clinton Apparelle filed with CA a petition for certiorari, prohibition registered trademark consists of two elements: (1) the word mark
and mandamus with prayer for issuance of TRO and/or writ of "Dockers" and (2) the wing-shaped design or logo. Notably, there is
preliminary injunction. only one registration for both features of the trademark giving the
CA held that RTC did not follow the procedure required by law for impression that the two should be considered as a single unit. Clinton
the issuance of a TRO as Clinton Apparelle was not duly notified of the Apparelles trademark, on the other hand, uses the "Paddocks" word
date of the summary hearing for its issuance. Thus, CA ruled that the mark on top of a logo which according to petitioners is a slavish
TRO had been improperly issued. CA also held that the issuance of the imitation of the "Dockers" design. The two trademarks apparently differ
writ of preliminary injunction is questionable. In its opinion, Levi in their word marks ("Dockers" and "Paddocks"), but again according
Strauss failed to sufficiently establish its material and substantial right to Levi Strauss, they employ similar or identical logos. It could thus be
to have the writ issued. Secondly, it observed that the survey presented said that Clinton Apparelle only "appropriates" Levi Strauss logo and
by Levi Strauss to support their contentions was commissioned by Levi not the word mark "Dockers"; it uses only a portion of the registered
Strauss. trademark and not the whole.
It is not evident whether the single registration of the trademark
ISSUE: WON the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction was "Dockers and Design" confers on the owner the right to prevent the use
proper of a fraction thereof in the course of trade. It is also unclear whether
the use without the owners consent of a portion of a trademark
No. Section 1, Rule 58 defines a preliminary injunction as an order registered in its entirety constitutes material or substantial invasion of
granted at any stage of an action prior to the judgment or final order the owners right.
requiring a party or a court, agency or a person to refrain from a It is likewise not settled whether the wing-shaped logo, as opposed
particular act or acts. Injunction is accepted as the strong arm of equity to the word mark, is the dominant or central feature of Levi Strauss
or a transcendent remedy to be used cautiously as it affects the trademarkthe feature that prevails or is retained in the minds of the
respective rights of the parties, and only upon full conviction on the publican imitation of which creates the likelihood of deceiving the
part of the court of its extreme necessity. An extraordinary remedy, public and constitutes trademark infringement. In sum, there are vital
injunction is designed to preserve or maintain the status quo of things matters which have yet and may only be established through a full-
and is generally availed of to prevent actual or threatened acts until blown trial.
the merits of the case can be heard. It may be resorted to only by a Levi Strauss right to injunctive relief has not been clearly and
litigant for the preservation or protection of his rights or interests and unmistakably demonstrated. The right has yet to be determined. Levi
for no other purpose during the pendency of the principal action. It is Strauss also failed to show proof that there is material and substantial
resorted to only when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious invasion of their right to warrant the issuance of an injunctive writ.
consequences, which cannot be remedied under any standard Neither was Levi Strauss able to show any urgent and permanent
compensation. The resolution of an application for a writ of preliminary necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.
injunction rests upon the existence of an emergency or of a special Moreover, the RTCs order granting the writ did not adequately detail
recourse before the main case can be heard in due course of the reasons for the grant. The trial court must state its own findings of
proceedings. fact and cite particular law to justify grant of preliminary injunction.
Under section 3, a clear and positive right especially calling for Utmost care in this regard is demanded.
judicial protection must be shown. Injunction is not a remedy to The trial court in granting the injunctive relief tersely ratiocinated
protect or enforce contingent, abstract, or future rights; it will not issue that "the plaintiffs appear to be entitled to the relief prayed for and this
to protect a right not in esse and which may never arise, or to restrain Court is of the considered belief and humble view that, without necessarily
an act which does not give rise to a cause of action. There must exist delving on the merits, the paramount interest of justice will be better
an actual right. There must be a patent showing by the complaint that served if the status quo shall be maintained." Clearly, this statement falls
there exists a right to be protected and that the acts against which the short of the requirement laid down by the above-quoted case.
writ is to be directed are violative of said right. In addition, the damages that Levi Strauss had suffered or continue
There are two kinds of preliminary injunction: (1) a prohibitory to suffer may be compensated in terms of monetary consideration.
injunction which commands a party to refrain from doing a particular A writ of injunction should never have been issued when an action
act; and (2) a mandatory injunction which commands the for damages would adequately compensate the injuries caused. The
performance of some positive act to correct a wrong in the past. very foundation of the jurisdiction to issue the writ of injunction rests
CA did not err in reviewing proof adduced by Levi Strauss to support in the probability of irreparable injury, inadequacy of pecuniary
its application for the issuance of the writ. While the matter of the estimation and the prevention of the multiplicity of suits, and where
5

facts are not shown to bring the case within these conditions, the Yes. Judge Adiong granted Saripada Ali Pacasums
relief of injunction should be refused. application for preliminary mandatory injunction on the very
Further, the issued injunctive writ, if allowed, would dispose of the same day the Special Civil Action was filed on 26 Feb 2001. Sections
case on the merits as it would effectively enjoin the use of the 4(c) and 5, Rule 58 is very explicit that the writ of preliminary
"Paddocks" device without proof that there is basis for such action. The injunction may issue only after prior notice and hearing upon the
prevailing rule is that courts should avoid issuing a writ of preliminary adverse party. In issuing the subject writ on the very same day, the
injunction that would in effect dispose of the main case without trial. application was filed and considering that the person against whom
There would be a prejudgment of the main case and a reversal of the the same was to be served was located in Makati, summons could not
rule on the burden of proof since it would assume the proposition have been served upon them or a hearing conducted in evident
which petitioners are inceptively bound to prove. disregard of the due process requirements of the Rules of Court.
The injunction issued in the instant case is of a serious nature as it Judge Adiongs failure to comply with procedural due process is
tends to do more than to maintain the status quo. In fact, the assailed aggravated by his total inattention to the parameters of his jurisdiction.
injunction if sustained would bring about the result desired by Levi As the presiding judge of RTC Marawi City, he should have known that
Strauss without a trial on the merits. Makati City was way beyond the boundaries of his territorial
Finally, we have no contention against the procedure adopted by the jurisdiction insofar as enforcing a writ of preliminary injunction is
trial court in resolving the application for an injunctive writ and we concerned. Section 21(1) of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended, provides that
believe that Clinton Apparelle was accorded due process. Due process, the RTC shall exercise original jurisdiction in the issuance of writs of
in essence, is simply an opportunity to be heard. And in applications certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and
for preliminary injunction, the requirement of hearing and prior notice injunction which may be enforced in any part of their respective
before injunction may issue has been relaxed to the point that not all regions. The trial court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of preliminary
petitions for preliminary injunction must undergo a trial-type hearing, injunction to enjoin acts being performed or about to be performed
it being a hornbook doctrine that a formal or trial-type hearing is not outside its territorial jurisdiction.
at all times and in all instances essential to due process. Due process In the case at bar, the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction
simply means giving every contending party the opportunity to be is not a mere deficiency in prudence, or lapse of judgment on the part
heard and the court to consider every piece of evidence presented in of Judge Adiong but a blatant disregard of basic rules constitutive of
their favor. gross ignorance of the law. The responsibility of judges to keep abreast
In the present case, Levi Strauss did not adequately prove its of the law and changes therein, as well as with the latest decisions of
entitlement to the injunctive writ. In the absence of proof of a legal the Supreme Court, is a pressing need. One cannot seek refuge in a
right and the injury sustained by the applicant, an order of the trial mere cursory acquaintance with the statute and procedural rules.
court granting the issuance of an injunctive writ will be set aside for Ignorance of the law, which everyone is bound to know, excuses no one
having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. not even judges.
Judge Adiong is suspended for six months without salary and
SECTION 2 benefits.
Doctrine of Non-Jurisdiction
Dela Paz vs. Adiong (2004)
Gomos vs. Adiong (2004)
15 May 2002: Gabriel dela Paz charged Judge Adiong of RTC
26 Feb 2001: Saripada Ali Pacasum filed Special Civil Action No. Marawi of gross ignorance of the law and/or abuse of authority for his
690-01 for mandamus with application for preliminary mandatory orders issued in a civil case.
injunction against Fund for Assistance To Private Education, alleging Judge Adiongs orders were: (1) granting the issuance of a writ of
that FAPE was required by law to pay subsidy to Pacasum College, Inc. preliminary injunction and requiring FAPE to prepare and issue a
under the Educational Service Program of DECS; that although the check in the amount of P4M representing the entitlement of Pacasum
DECS has already released to FAPE the total amount of P746M for College for SY 2001-2002, (2) ordering the sheriffs of Makati and
payment to different participating schools, FAPE refused to release to Mandaluyong to serve the writ and make a return on their actions, and
Pacasum College, Inc. the sum of P1,845,040 which represented the (3) ordering sheriff of Makati to take custody of the funds/check in the
remaining unpaid collectible of the said institution for the school year name of Pacasum College in the amount of P4M.
2000-2001; that the continued refusal by FAPE to release the said 8 May: Makati Sheriff Gaspar issued notices of garnishment to Land
amount has caused the school to fail in its obligation to pay the salaries Bank Ortigas and BPI-Far East Bank Pasay.
of its teachers for 3 months. FAPEs contention: It was not served with summons but received
On same day, Judge Adiong granted the application for preliminary copies of the questioned orders on March 8, 2002; that the writ of
mandatory injunction upon posting by Pacasum of a surety or property preliminary mandatory injunction which was intended to be enforced
bond of P200k. in Makati is outside the jurisdiction of the 12th Judicial Region of RTC
28 Feb: Judge Adiong issued another order directing FAPE President Marawi City; that Section 21 of BP Blg. 129, as amended, provides that
Borromeo to prepare and issue a check for P1,845,040 representing the RTC has jurisdiction to issue writ of injunction which may be
the payment to the Pacasum College, Inc. Subsequently, Sheriff enforced in any part of its respective regions; that the writ was granted
Alipanto served upon FAPE summons and a copy of the petition. without hearing and notice; neither was there a showing of an affidavit
5 Mar: FAPE filed petition for certiorari and prohibition, challenging that would establish that great or irreparable injury would result to the
the orders of Judge Adiong, arguing that the RTC of Marawi City has applicant before the matter can be heard nor was there a showing that
no jurisdiction to enforce the writs of mandamus and preliminary a bond had been filed.
injunction to FAPE, in its principal office in Makati City, since the place Dela Pazs claim: Judge Adiongs issuance of the writ of preliminary
is outside the 12th judicial region where it belongs, among others. mandatory injunction dated March 4, 2002 was in glaring disregard
14 Mar: CA issued TRO enjoining Judge Adiong from enforcing the and defiance of Section 21 of BP Blg. 129 which limits the authority
orders. Despite the TRO, Judge Adiong ordered the arrest of Dr. of RTCs to issue writs of mandamus within their respective regions.
Borromeo and FAPE employees for failure to comply with his orders. The issuance of the writ was in disregard of the notice and hearing
Sultan Sabdulah Ali Pacasum filed a letter complaint, charging requirements under Rule 58. Judge Adiong continues to issue orders
Judge Adiong with gross ignorance of the law and gross misconduct directing FAPE to release the amount of P4M to Datu Saripada Ali
on the ground that Judge Adiong violated the hearing, notice and Pacasum even in a case where it was not a party thereto.
jurisdictional requirements of the Rules of Court in issuing his orders.
OCA found that Judge Adiong was liable. ISSUE: WON Judge Adiong is guilty of the charge

ISSUE: WON Judge Adiong is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and Yes. The rule on injunction as found under Rule 58 of the Rules of
gross misconduct Court provides that the same can only be granted upon a verified
application showing facts entitling the applicant to the relief demanded
and upon the filing of a bond executed to the party or person enjoined.
6

It is also provided that no preliminary injunction shall be granted ISSUE: WON the writ of execution was proper
without hearing and prior notice to the party or person sought to
be enjoined unless shown that great or irreparable injury would result Yes. Under Sec. 17 of BP 129, the exercise of jurisdiction of the
to the applicant before the matter can be heard on notice; that a Regional Trial Courts and their judges is basically regional in scope but
temporary restraining order may be issued effective for a period of 20 under Sec. 18, it may be limited to the territorial area of the branch in
days from service on the party sought to be enjoined. which the judge sits.
A perusal of the Order dated March 4, 2002 failed to show that The RTC of Caloocan City could not be deemed to have committed
Judge Adiong conducted a hearing before the injunction was granted a reversible error when it denied Mangahas Motion to Suspend
or that complainant was given prior notice thereof. In fact, Dela Paz Proceedings. Apparently, the extent of the enforceability of an
stressed that FAPE was not at all served with summons before the writ injunction writ issued by the RTC is defined by the territorial region
of preliminary mandatory injunction was issued. It was not also shown where the magistrate presides.
whether the applicant posted a bond and the same was approved Consequently, the issue involving the binding effect of the injunction
before the order granting the preliminary mandatory injunction was issued by the Quezon City RTC became the law of the case between
issued. A bond is required unless exempted by the court. The Order the parties. Under this legal principle, whatever is irrevocably
merely stated that the petition was sufficient in form and substance established as the controlling legal rule or decision between the parties
without even stating the facts which would support the granting of the in the same case continues to be the law of the case, so long as the
injunction. This is a clear violation of the rule. facts on which the decision was predicated continue. Stated otherwise,
Judge Adiongs court is in Marawi City which falls within the 12th the doctrine holds that once an appellate court has declared the law
judicial region. The writ of preliminary mandatory injunction issued by in a case that declaration continues to hold even in subsequent appeal.
Judge Adiong requiring FAPE, which is holding office in Makati City, The reason lies in the fact that public policy dictates that litigations
and its officials who have their residences in Metro Manila, to issue a must be terminated at some definite time and that the prevailing party
check in the amount of P4M payable to Datu Saripada Ali Pacasum, is should not be denied the fruits of his victory by some subterfuge
outside the territorial jurisdiction of his court. Thus, the writ of devised by the losing party.
preliminary mandatory injunction issued by the Judge Adiong is void Mangahas and Verdejo are therefore barred from assailing the ruling
considering that his authority to issue an injunction is limited only to that the injunction issued by the Quezon City RTC has no binding effect
and operative only within his respective provinces or districts. to the courts of Caloocan City as this issue had already been passed
Consequently, the Order dated March 5, 2002 directing the sheriff upon with finality. Issues should be laid to rest at some point; otherwise
of Makati and Mandaluyong to serve the writ of preliminary mandatory there would be no end to litigation.
injunction to FAPE, et al. is a jurisdictional faux pas as Judge Adiong Quite conspicuously, the instant petition assailing the order of the
can only enforce his orders within his courts territorial jurisdiction. RTC denying Mangahas motion to suspend execution is a ploy to
Likewise, Judge Adiong has also shown abuse of his authority in deprive Banaag of the fruits of his hard-won case. It must be stressed
issuing his Order dated April 22, 2002 in Corporate Case No. 010 that once a decision becomes final and executory, it is the ministerial
requiring FAPE, a non-party to the case, to comply with the writ of duty of the presiding judge to issue a writ of execution except in certain
preliminary mandatory injunction. cases, as when subsequent events would render execution of judgment
unjust. Mangahas and Verdejo did not allege nor proffer any evidence
Mangahas vs. Paredes (2007) that this case falls within the exception. Hence, there is no reason to
vacate the writ of execution issued by the RTC.
31 Jan 97: Avelino Banaag filed a verified complaint for ejectment Note: It must be pointed out that Mangahas and Verdejos direct
against Augusto Mangahas and Marilou Verdejo, averring that the latter recourse to this Court via petition for Declaratory Relief, Certiorari,
constructed houses on the property without his knowledge and Prohibition With Prayer For Provisional Remedy is an utter disregard
consent and that several demands were made, but the same fell on of the hierarchy of courts and should have been dismissed outright.
deaf ears as they refused to vacate the premises. This Courts original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition,
Mangahas and Verdejo filed their answer denying having unlawfully mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction is not
deprived Banaag possession of the contested property and claimed exclusive. It is shared by this Court with the Regional Trial Courts and
that they have resided in the subject lot with the knowledge and the Court of Appeals. Such concurrence of jurisdiction does not give
conformity of the true owner thereof, Pinagkamaligan Indo-Agro the petitioners unbridled freedom of choice of court forum. A direct
Development Corporation (PIADECO). recourse of the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction to issue these
10 Jul: Mangahas and Verdejo filed a Manifestation And Motion To writs should be allowed only when there are special and important
Suspend Proceedings on the ground that the subject property is part reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. In the
of the Tala Estate and that the RTC Quezon City issued a Writ of instant case, they have not offered any exceptional or compelling
Preliminary Injunction dated 10 Nov 1997, enjoining the MeTCs of reason not to observe the hierarchy of courts. Hence, the petition
Quezon City and Caloocan City from ordering the eviction and should have been filed with the RTC.
demolition of all occupants of the Tala Estate. They posited that the
injunction issued by the Quezon City RTC is enforceable in Caloocan Exceptions
City because both cities are situated within the National Capital Region.
7 Aug: MeTC denied said manifestation and motion, ratiocinating Decano vs. Edu (1980)
that the injunction issued by the Quezon City RTC has binding effect
only within the territorial boundaries of the said court and since 12 Sep 62: Undersecretary of Public Works and Communications
Caloocan City is not within the territorial area of same, the injunction issued to Federico Decano a temporary appointment to the position of
it issued is null and void for lack of jurisdiction. janitor in the Motor Vehicles Office with compensation at the rate of
5 Oct 99: MeTC ruled in favor of Banaag. Mangahas and Verdejo P1,440/annum. The appointment having been approved by the CSC,
appealed to RTC. RTC affirmed MeTC. Filed MR, denied. Mangahas Decano assumed office on September 10, 1962 and he served therein
appealed to CA. CA affirmed RTC. CA decision became final on 2002. for almost four years.
11 Dec 2000: Banaag filed a motion for execution pending appeal. 29 Apr 66: Decano received a telegram from Romeo F. Edu, in his
A writ of execution was issued on 27 Sep 2001. then capacity as Acting Commissioner of Land Transportation
17 Jan 2003: Mangahas and Verdejo filed a motion to suspend the Commission, terminating his services effective as of the close of
execution before the RTC. Denied. The writ was implemented. business on that day.
Mangahas contention: The Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated 10 Aggrieved, Decano filed a petition for "Mandamus and Injunction"
Nov 1997 which emanated from the RTC of Quezon City should have claiming that the aforementioned officials of the LTC acted without
prompted the RTC of Caloocan City to suspend the ejectment power and in excess of authority in removing him from the service, and
proceedings then pending before it. They contended that the therefore praying for the court to declare as null and void the order for
injunction writ issued in Quezon City is enforceable also in Caloocan his removal, to declare him entitled to the position, to compel his
City inasmuch as both cities are situated within the NCR. reinstatement and payment of his regular salary, and to enjoin,
7

preliminary, and then permanently, Edu from disturbing, is also a domestic corporation with office in Cubao, Quezon City.
molesting or otherwise ousting him from his position as janitor. MC Adore owns and operates the MC Adore Intl Palace Hotel at
A writ of preliminary injunction was issued. After trial, the lower court Dagupan City. MC Adore entered into a contract for power service with
declared Decanos removal was null and void upon the ground that the DECORP. DECORP rendered full power services.
Commissioner of Land Transportation was not the appointing authority MC Adore Intl Palace Hotel failed to pay its September and October
insofar as the position of Decano and other minor positions in his office 1978 bills to Dagupan Electric Corp. Due to this, DECORP served a
were concerned; and thus lacking the power of appointment, Edu had Notice of Disconnection that unless payment is made within the usual
neither the power of removal. period of 48 hours, the disconnection service will be made. Indeed,
DECORP disconnected the electrical services of MC Adore.
ISSUE: WON non-jurisdiction applies in the case at bar 6 Dec 78: MC Adore filed a complaint for damages with writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction against DECORP in CFI Rizal. On the
No. There is no question that Decano could be removed from office same day, Judge issued an ex parte order for a preliminary injunction,
at any time, for it has been held repeatedly that the acceptance of a commanding DECORP as well as its agents in Dagupan City to "restore
temporary appointment divests an appointee of the right to security of immediately not later than 5-M p.m., December 7, 1978, the electrical
tenure against removal without cause. He could therefore be removed power of the MC Adore International Palace Hotel and resume the
at the pleasure of the appointing official. electrical supply of and the electrical services and facilities to said hotel
But this is not to say that Decano could be removed by the to enable it to operate it fully, under pain of contempt.
Commissioner of Land Transportation since the latter was not the 8 Dec: MC Adore also moved that its "cash bond in the sum of P50k
official who appointed him but the Undersecretary acting for the represented by Check No. 12100 of the BPI payable to the clerk of
Secretary of Public Works and Communications nor had said court" be substituted by a surety bond.
respondent been granted by law the power of removal. For failure of DECORP and its agents in Dagupan City to comply with
It is true that under Section 2 of Rule 58, a court of first instance the aforesaid preliminary mandatory injunction, MC Adore filed a
has no jurisdiction to require or control the execution of an act petition to declare DECORP and its corporate officers in contempt of
committed beyond the limits of its territorial jurisdiction. These cases court, also on the same day.
invariably involved petitions for writs of injunction seeking to control The judge issued an order, stating: DECORPs corporate officers,
the actions of courts or officers outside the territorial jurisdiction of the except Atty. Leonardo Baro may be held in custody until the order is
respondent courts of first instance where said petitions had been filed. complied, as the Court finds no valid justification for this contumacious
However, this ruling on non-jurisdiction does not apply to the facts and disobedience. Defendant Corporation has its head offices in Quezon City,
circumstance at bar. and although the plant is in Dagupan City, the plant can only act upon
Here, Decano seeks primarily the annulment of the dismissal order orders of the Quezon City head office.
issued by Edu, mandamus and injunction being then merely corollary 11 Dec: On the hearing for preliminary mandatory injunction,
remedies to the main relief sought, and what is prayed to be enjoined, DECORP appeared and moved for reconsideration of the orders for
as in fact the trial court did enjoin by preliminary injunction, is the want of jurisdiction or GAD.
implementation of the termination order against Decano. 19 Dec: MR was denied. Judge ordered the enforcement of the
It is true that the order of dismissal was issued by Edu, but it was to preliminary mandatory injunction.
be implemented in Dagupan City by his subordinate officer, the Acting The Court issued a resolution temporarily restraining DECORP from
Registrar of the LTC stationed at Dagupan. Insofar, therefore, as Edu is enforcing or continuing to enforce the orders of 6 and 12 Dec 78 .
concerned, the order terminating the services of Decano was a fait 21 Mar 79: MC Adore manifested that it had filed a counterbond of
accompli and this he had done without authority, as earlier discussed. P225k.
The injunction in question, consequently, must be taken only to 12 May: DECORP filed an urgent supplemental motion reiterating
restrain the implementation of Edu's order by his co-respondent whose their prayer that they be allowed to redisconnect the electric power
official station at Dagupan City is within the territorial boundaries of from the hotel of MC Adore on the ground that MC Adore had failed
the trial court's jurisdictional district. and refused to pay its electric power consumption based on the actual
The national official stationed at Quezon City, namely, meter readings as directed by the Court. Granted.
Commissioner Edu, was impleaded as respondent in the Pangasinan MC Adore filed an urgent motion to hold in abeyance the
court for a complete determination of the issues involved, the legality compliance with the resolution on the ground that the current monthly
of Edu's order of dismissal being the pivotal issue to determine the bills being presented by DECORP to MC Adore are the result of
merits of the mandamus and injunction aspects of the petition. In other readings taken from the electric meter which was tampered and asked
words, Mr. Edu was joined as respondent not for injunction purposes that it be allowed to continue depositing the regular payment in the
but mainly for testing the legality of his dismissal order and his amount of P35k per month with the court until such time that the issue
transmittal thereof to his co-respondent registrar at Dagupan City to on the tampered meter and questionable bins shall have been finally
implement the same and terminate the services of Decano in Dagupan. resolved. Granted.
It has been held that where the issue is the correctness of a national DECORPs contention: CFI Rizal at Quezon City has no jurisdiction
official's decision, the provincial courts of first instance have equal over the case because the act of disconnecting the power to the hotel
jurisdiction with the Manila courts to review decisions of national of the MC Adore Finance and Investment, Inc. took place in Dagupan
officials, as otherwise litigants of ted means would practically be City, outside the Province of Rizal and Quezon City.
denied access to the courts of the localities where the reside and where MC Adores contention: The act of disconnection was the result of
the questioned acts are sought to be enforced. an order issued by DECORP from its business office in Quezon City.
The doctrines invoked in support of the theory of non-jurisdiction
are inapplicable, in that those cases involved petitions for writs of ISSUE: WON Judge Pao acted with GAD in issuing the writ of
injunction seeking to control the actions of courts or officers outside preliminary injunction ordering DECORP to restore the connection of
the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent courts involved. It is easy the electric power of MC Adore in Dagupan City
to see that if the contested ruling of the court below is sustained, the
same would result not only in hardship to litigants of limited means, No. Court of First Instance of Rizal at Quezon City has jurisdiction.
practically amounting to denial of access to the courts, but would also DECORP has its principal office in Quezon City where the business of
unnecessarily encumber the Manila courts whose dockets are already the corporation is managed by the Board of Directors. Decisions of the
over. The power of provincial courts of first instance to review said corporation are made in Quezon City. The employees of DECORP
administrative decisions of national officials has been consistently in Dagupan City merely carry out the orders issued by the officials of
recognized. said corporation in Quezon City. Hence the acts sought to be restrained
are being committed in Quezon City.
Dagupan Electric Corp. vs. Pao (1980) Judge Pano did not commit GAD in issuing the questioned order
directing DECORP to restore the connection of the electric power to
DECORP is a domestic corporation with a principal office in Quezon the hotel owned by MC Adore. The record shows that Judge Pano
City, although its generating plant is located in Pangasinan. MC Adore
8

conducted hearings and gave the parties full opportunity to the necessary arrangements with Metrobank regarding their
present their evidence before issuing the orders sought to be set occupancy.
aside. AAHI filed MR. Denied.
Judge Panos findings: On the question of jurisdiction, both parties 18 Jun 2002: Allgemeine filed a separate petition for the issuance
are residents of Quezon City, as they have their principal offices in of a TRO and a writ of preliminary injunction with the appellate court,
Quezon City. The disconnection order was initiated and had its life and and also to enjoin the implementation of the writ of possession issued
source in Quezon City. The mandatory injunction is addressed to the by Muntinlupa RTC. It alleged that its complaint-in-intervention is its
corporation in Quezon City. The Dagupan plant acts only upon order principal action but as the said court could not enjoin Branch 276 from
of its officers in Quezon City. In the cases where the Supreme Court implementing the writ of possession, both courts being of equal
ruled that the district court has improperly issued the writ, no private jurisdiction, it had no choice but to file the petition with the appellate
right of ownership was involved. Rather they involved licenses or court. CA denied the prayer.
privileges granted by government agencies with offices located beyond
the district court's territorial jurisdiction. Where private rights are ISSUE: WON the CA committed grave and palpable error in denying
involved, the Supreme Court had upheld the issuance of the writ. Here its prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction
we have a case of the interference of plaintiff's property rights, with
situs in Quezon City by a corporation with situs in Quezon City. The No. It is axiomatic that what determines the nature of an action and
exercise of will by defendant had its origin in Quezon City. This Court hence, the jurisdiction of a court, are the allegations of the complaint
can grant relief when that exercise of will causes irreparable prejudice. and the character of the relief sought.
It is clear from the foregoing order that Judge Pano did not act What Allgemeine filed with the CA was an original action for
capriciously or whimsically in ordering DECORP to restore the preliminary injunction which is a provisional and extra-ordinary
connection of the electric power to the hotel in Dagupan City of the MC remedy calculated to preserve or maintain the status quo of things and
Adore Finance and Investment, Inc.. is availed of to prevent actual or threatened acts, until the merits of the
The various incidents regarding the correctness of the monthly bill case can be heard.
presented by DECORP to the MC Adore can be better heard and An original action for injunction is outside the jurisdiction of the
resolved by Judge Pano. The correct amounts due prior to June 1979 Court of Appeals, however. Under BP 129, the appellate court has
shall be resolved by Judge Pano after hearing the parties. original jurisdiction only over actions for annulment of judgments of
the RTCs and has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus,
Allgemeine-Bau-Chemie Phils. Vs. Metrobank (2006) prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus and quo warranto, and auxiliary
writs or processes whether or not they are in aid of its appellate
19 Nov 96: Asian Appraisal Holdings, Inc. obtained a loan jurisdiction.
amounting to P442.5M from Solidbank Corp. for the construction of The appellate courts jurisdiction to grant a writ of preliminary
Asian Star Building, a 20-storey commercial condominium built on lots injunction is limited to actions or proceedings pending before it, as
located at Filinvest Corporate City, Alabang, Muntinlupa City. Section 2 of Rule 58.
As security for the loan, AAHI executed a security agreement or real In the case at bar, Allgemeines complaint-in-intervention in Civil
estate mortgage dated 19 Nov 96 over its property consisting of the Case No. 00-196 was pending before Branch 256 of the Muntinlupa
lots covered by TCT Nos. 205967 and 205969 and the condominium RTC, not with the appellate court. Its petition before the appellate
built thereon including all units, parking slots, common areas and court does not show, nay allege, that in issuing the writ of possession,
other improvements, machineries and equipment. The REM was the Muntinlupa RTC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or
registered with the ROD on 19 Nov 96 and duly annotated on the with grave abuse of discretion for it to be treated as either one for
individual Condominium Certificates of Title on even date. certiorari or prohibition.
17 Nov 99: AAHI entered into a contract to sell with Allgemeine for
the purchase of Units 1004 and 1005 and the right to the exclusive CSC vs. CA (2005)
use of 4 parking slots for a total purchase price of P23,571,280.
22 Dec: the parties executed an addendum to the contract to sell 22 Dec 95: A Complaint for Grave Misconduct and Moonlighting
whereby AAHI assigned to Allgemeine the right to the exclusive use of with Urgent Prayer for Preventive Suspension and Disarming was filed
parking slot P504 covered by CTC No. 54975 for a consideration of by the stockholders and board members of United Workers Transport
P600k, which Allgemeine paid on even date. Corp. against SPO1 Rimando Gannapao before the PNP, Inspectorate
23 Mar 2000: AAHI and Solidbank informed Allgemeine of the real Division, Camp Crame, Quezon City.
estate mortgage forged by them and was advised to remit its monthly A Summary Hearing was conducted by the Office of the Legal
amortizations for the units and parking slots it purchased to Solidbank. Service of the National Headquarters PNP against Gannapao for the
Allgemeine was also requested to inform Solidbank of the total alleged moonlighting. Records show that prior to the investigation
installments it had paid for these units and parking slots and the conducted by the Office of Legal Service, however, another pre-charge
balance still due thereon. investigation had been held for the same case by the Headquarters
Oct 2001: Allgemeine fully settled its obligation to AAHI in the total Support Services also of the National Headquarters of the PNP. The
amount of P26,588,409.30. investigation appears to have been dismissed.
21 Oct: AAHI defaulted on its loan obligation. Metrobank filed before 26 Nov 97: PNP Chief Sarmiento rendered a decision imposing 3
RTC Muntinlupa a petition for extra-judicial foreclosure of the REM. mos suspension to Gannapao.
30 Oct: AAHI also filed a complaint against Solidbank for specific 6 Feb 98: Gannapao filed an urgent motion for reconsideration.
performance with preliminary injunction to enjoin the foreclosure of Denied by PNP Director General Alio. Gannapao appealed to National
the REM before RTC Muntinlupa. Appellate Board, which was dismissed. Gannapao then filed a petition
31 Oct: The mortgaged properties were sold at public auction to for appeal with the DILG, which was also denied. Thereafter, he
Metrobank, to which the banking operations of Solidbank were appealed to the CSC, praying the setting aside of the penalty of 3
integrated. months suspension and/or for the Commission to conduct a hearing
24 Jan 2002: Metrobank filed an Ex-Parte petition for the Issuance or a reinvestigation alleging lack of due process.
of a Writ of Possession of the properties subject of the foreclosed 3 Apr 2002: CSC rendered a resolution dismissing the appeal and
mortgage. Granted. modifying the suspension to a dismissal from service.
9 Apr: Allgemeine filed a motion for intervention in AAHIs complaint 30 May: Gannapao filed a petition for review with CA assailing the
against Solidbank, with prayer for the annulment of the extra-judicial CSCs resolution.
foreclosure sale, delivery of title, and damages and for the issuance of 8 Jan 2003: CSC through the Office of the Sol-Gen filed its Comment
a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction on the Petition specifically stating among others that Gannapao was
enjoining Metrobank to consolidate its title and to take possession of not entitled to a preliminary injunction.
its properties. 14 Jan: CA issued a Resolution granting Gannapaos motion for
15 Apr: Court Sheriff issued a notice to vacate which was served on issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining, restraining and
16 May 2002 upon all building occupants who were advised to make
9

prohibiting CSC from implementing its assailed CSC resolution merely considered the filing of the Motion to Dismiss as a waiver
dismissing Gannapao. of his right to file an answer. Then it proceeded to rule on the
CSCs contention: CA erred in issuing the writ because the case on its merits. He subsequently appealed to the CSC his three-
Commission found that Gannapao was guilty of misconduct. The month suspension, which had been affirmed by the DILG. Specifically,
injunctive relief violates the Administrative Code and the CSC rules he claimed lack of due process and requested the CSC to grant him a
stating that administrative disciplinary penalties shall be immediately hearing. Not only did it affirm the assailed Order of the DILG, it
executory, notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal. moreover increased the penalty to dismissal from the service.
Under the above circumstances, it appears that Gannapao, without
ISSUE: WON CA committed GAD in granting the motion for issuance prejudging his case on its merits, has raised a prima facie defense of
of the writ of preliminary injunction in favor of Gannapao lack of due process.

No. Neither the Administrative Code nor the CSC rules deprive City Government of Baguio vs. Masweng (2009)
courts of their power to grant restraining orders or preliminary
injunctions to stay the execution of CSC decisions pending appeal. The case stemmed from the 3 Demolition Orders issued by the City
Moreover, a courts issuance of a preliminary injunction, when proper, Mayor of Baguio, Braulio D. Yaranon, ordering the demolition of the
is expressly authorized by Section 2 of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court. illegal structures constructed by Lazaro Bawas, Alexander Ampaguey,
Furthermore, Section 82 of Rule VI of CSC Memorandum Circular 19- Sr. and a certain Mr. Basatan on a portion of the Busol Watershed
99 recognizes the authority of the CA and the Supreme Court to issue Reservation without the required building permits.
restraining orders or injunctions. Pursuant thereto, the corresponding demolition advices dated 19
Having appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the CSC, the CA Sep 2006 were issued informing the occupants thereon of the
clearly has the discretion to issue an ancillary writ of preliminary intended demolition of the erected structures on Oct 17 to 20, 2006.
injunction to secure the rights of private respondent pending appeal Consequently, Elvin Gumangan, Narciso Basatan and Lazaro Bawas
of his dismissal. Absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, filed a petition for injunction with prayer for the issuance of a
the exercise of judgment by the courts in injunctive matters should not temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction
be interfered with. against the Office of the City Mayor of Baguio before the NCIP-CAR,
Grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of writs of preliminary Regional Office, La Trinidad, Benguet.
injunction implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment 16 and 19 Oct 2006: Regional Hearing Officer Atty. Masweng of the
equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Otherwise defined, grave NCIP issued the 2 assailed TRO directing the City Government and all
abuse is the exercise of power in an arbitrary or a despotic manner by persons acting for and in their behalf to refrain from enforcing the
reason of passion, prejudice or personal aversion amounting to an demolition advice and orders.
evasion of a positive duty, or a refusal to perform the duty enjoined or Subsequently, the NCIP issued the other assailed Resolution dated
to act at all in contemplation of law. 10 Nov 2006, granting the private respondents application for
Certiorari will not issue to cure errors in proceedings or to correct preliminary injunction subject to the posting of an injunctive bond
mere erroneous conclusions of law or fact. The burden is upon each in the amount of P10k.
petitioner to demonstrate that the questioned writ constitutes a CA upheld the jurisdiction of the NCIP over the action filed by private
whimsical and capricious exercise of judgment. As long as a court acts respondents and affirmed the TRO and the grant of the writ.
within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of City Governments contention: NCIP has no jurisdiction to hear and
that jurisdiction will amount to nothing more than errors of judgment decide main actions for injunction such as the one filed by private
which, as a rule, are reviewable by a timely appeal of the final respondents. They claim that the NCIP has the authority to issue TRO
disposition of the case. and writs of preliminary injunction only as auxiliary remedies to cases
As to issuance of the preliminary injunction. Section 3 of Rule 58 of pending before it. Further, the IPRA provides that Baguio City shall be
the Rules of Court prescribes the grounds for the issuance of a writ of governed by its Charter. Thus, private respondents cannot claim their
preliminary injunction. The requisites for the issuance of the writ are alleged ancestral lands under the provisions of the IPRA.
the following: (1) the existence of a clear and unmistakable right that Private respondents contention: NCIP has jurisdiction to take
must be protected and (2) an urgent and paramount necessity for the cognizance of and decide main actions for injunction arguing that the
writ to prevent serious damage. In taking cognizance of a prayer for a IPRA does not state that the NCIP may only issue such writs of
writ of preliminary injunction, a court has the duty to determine injunction as auxiliary remedies. Also contend that the IPRA does not
whether the requisites for the grant of the injunction are present in the exempt Baguio City from its coverage nor does it state that there are
case before it. no ancestral lands in Baguio City.
In the present controversy, however, the assailed Order does not
state the basis for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. The ISSUE: WON NCIP has jurisdiction over the action / WON NCIP has the
CA made no findings of fact or law indicating that any of the elements power to issue writs of preliminary injunction
essential for the grant of an injunctive writ existed. After merely stating
that it took "into consideration the allegations and the arguments set Yes. The NCIP is the primary government agency responsible for the
forth" in the Urgent Motion filed by Gannapao, the CA immediately formulation and implementation of policies, plans and programs to
concluded afterwards that Gannapao was entitled to the relief protect and promote the rights and well-being of indigenous cultural
demanded. communities/indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs) and the recognition of
Nevertheless, in the interest of justice and fair play, this Court their ancestral domains as well as their rights thereto. In order to fully
scrutinized the records of the case and, indeed, found sufficient effectuate its mandate, the NCIP is vested with jurisdiction over all
grounds for the grant of the injunctive Writ. Prior to the finality of the claims and disputes involving the rights of ICCs/IPs. The only condition
CSC Decision dismissing him, Gannapao has a clear and unmistakable precedent to the NCIPs assumption of jurisdiction over such disputes
right to his current position in the police service. Unquestionably, the is that the parties thereto shall have exhausted all remedies provided
right to employment, oftentimes the lowly employees only noble under their customary laws and have obtained a certification from the
source of bread and butter, is entitled to protection by the State. Council of Elders/Leaders who participated in the attempt.
Moreover, the immediate implementation of the not yet final penalty In addition, NCIP Administrative Circular No. 1-03 reiterates the
of dismissal from the service would surely cause Gannapao (and his jurisdiction of the NCIP over claims and disputes involving ancestral
family) irreparable damage. As pleaded, his salary and benefits as a lands and enumerates the actions that may be brought before the
policeman are his familys only source of income. Furthermore, he commission.
incessantly asserted that the case against him had already been In order to determine whether the NCIP has jurisdiction over the
dismissed in an earlier PNP pre-charge investigation. When the case dispute in accordance with the foregoing provisions, it is necessary to
was reopened, he allegedly moved for dismissal on the ground of re resolve, on the basis of the allegations in their petition, whether private
judicata. respondents are members of ICCs/IPs. In their petition filed before the
Instead of ruling on the issue of whether the prior dismissal was in NCIP, private respondents, members of the Ibaloi tribe who first settled
fact a bar to the reopening of the case, the PNP Office of Legal Service in Baguio City, were asserting ownership of portions of the Busol Forest
10

Reservation which they claim to be their ancestral lands. Correctly In said Resolution, Demetria was found guilty of gross
denominated as a petition for injunction as it sought to prevent misconduct: (a) by issuing a TRO with the signature of only two
the enforcement of the demolition orders issued by the City Mayor, the out of three justices of the CA; (b) by enforcing the decision of the
petition traced private respondents ancestry to Molintas and appellate court notwithstanding the fact that the same is pending
Gumangan and asserted their possession, occupation and utilization appeal with the Supreme Court and (c) by showing his keen interest in
of their ancestral lands. The petition also alleged that private the immediate execution of the decision despite the lack of authority
respondents claim over these lands had been recognized by of the Court of Appeals to appoint a Special Sheriff.
Proclamation No. 15 which mentions the names of Molintas and Demetrias contention: He was denied due process; he is not guilty
Gumangan as having claims over portions of the Busol Forest of gross misconduct for the failure of one of the Justices of the Court
Reservation. of Appeals to sign the Resolution granting the issuance of a temporary
Clearly then, the allegations in the petition, which axiomatically restraining order; and, he is not guilty of misconduct "in allegedly
determine the nature of the action and the jurisdiction of a particular directing the appointment of a special sheriff".
tribunal, squarely qualify it as a "disputes or controversies over
ancestral lands/domains of ICCs/IPs" within the original and exclusive ISSUE: WON Demetrias contention is with merit
jurisdiction of the NCIP-RHO.
The IPRA, furthermore, endows the NCIP with the power to issue Partly meritorious. Demetria was found guilty of gross ignorance of
temporary restraining orders and writs of injunction. Sec. 69 of IPRA the law for disregarding existing rules of procedure in issuing a
Law provides that the NCIP shall have the power and authority to xxx temporary restraining order which bore the signatures of only two
enjoin any or all acts involving or arising from any case pending before it justices of the CA.
which, if not restrained forthwith, may cause grave or irreparable damage Section 5 of Rule 58 provides the phrase: xxx if issued by the Court
to any of the parties to the case or seriously affect social or economic of Appeals or a member thereof, the temporary restraining order shall be
activity. effective for sixty (60) days from service on the party or person sought to
Also, NCIP Administrative Circular 1-03 echoes the above provision, be enjoined.
which states: A writ of preliminary injunction or restraining order may be Moreover, under Section 10 of Rule 3 of the Revised Internal Rules
granted by the Commission xxx when it is established, on the basis of of the CA, it is provided: When the Justice to whom the case is assigned
sworn allegations in a petition, that the acts complained of involving or for study and report is absent, the motions and incidents enumerated in
arising from any case, if not restrained forthwith, may cause grave or the proceeding section may be acted upon by the Chairman or by the
irreparable damage or injury to any of the parties, or seriously affect social other member of the Division to which that Justice belongs. If the
or economic activity. This power may also be exercised by RHOs in cases members of the division are all absent, any motion for the issuance of a
pending before them in order to preserve the rights of the parties. restraining order shall be referred to the Presiding Justice for appropriate
As can be gleaned from the foregoing provisions, the NCIP may issue action.
TROs and writs of injunction without any prohibition against the Under the foregoing, even only one (1) member of the CA may issue
issuance of the writ when the main action is for injunction. The power a temporary restraining order. Thus, on this matter, Demetria could
to issue TROs or writs of injunction allows parties to a dispute over not be held guilty of gross misconduct.
which the NCIP has jurisdiction to seek relief against any action which Nevertheless, we maintain that the issuance of TRO by only one or
may cause them grave or irreparable damage or injury. In this case, two justices of the CA must be exercised sparingly, that is, only in case
the Regional Hearing Officer issued the injunctive writ because its of extreme necessity where there is compelling reason to abate or
jurisdiction was called upon to protect and preserve the rights of avoid a grave injury to a party.
private respondents who are undoubtedly members of ICCs/IPs.
Parenthetically, in order to reinforce the powers of the NCIP, the
IPRA even provides that no restraining order or preliminary injunction
may be issued by any inferior court against the NCIP in any case,
dispute or controversy arising from or necessary to the interpretation
of the IPRA and other laws relating to ICCs/IPs and ancestral domains.

ISSUE: WON private respondents ancestral land claim was indeed


recognized by Proclamation No. 15 in which case, their right thereto
may be protected by an injunctive writ

No. Before a writ of preliminary injunction may be issued, petitioners


must show that there exists a right to be protected and that the acts
against which injunction is directed are violative of said right.
Proclamation No. 15, however, does not appear to be a definitive
recognition of private respondents ancestral land claim. The
proclamation merely identifies the Molintas and Gumangan families,
the predecessors-in-interest of private respondents, as claimants of a
portion of the Busol Forest Reservation but does not acknowledge
vested rights over the same. In fact, Proclamation No. 15 explicitly
withdraws the Busol Forest Reservation from sale or settlement.
The fact remains, too, that the Busol Forest Reservation was
declared by the Court as inalienable in Heirs of Gumangan v. Court of
Appeals. The declaration of the Busol Forest Reservation as such
precludes its conversion into private property. Relatedly, the courts are
not endowed with jurisdictional competence to adjudicate forest lands.
All told, although the NCIP has the authority to issue TROs and writs
of injunction, we are not convinced that private respondents are
entitled to the relief granted by the Commission.

Reyes vs. Demetria (2003)

Demetrio Demetria filed a motion for reconsideration, praying that


the Resolution en banc dated 23 Jan 2002 be reconsidered and that
he be absolved of all administrative charges leveled against him.