CA-G.R. SP NO. 152300 AZ 17/13 Realty, Inc., Petitioner, - versus - Azucena Locsin-Garcia, Respondent.

679 37 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF APPEALS Manila

0142 SECOND DIVISION

.0002 AZ 17/13 REALTY,INC. Petitioner, CA-G.R. SP NO. 152300

AZUCENA LOCSIN-GARCIA. -versus- Members: CRUZ, S. C., and ANTONIO-VALENZUELA, N. G.,JJ. CARANDANG, R. D. Chairperson,

Respondent.

Promulgated:

NOVEMBER 9,2017 X

RESOLUTION

CRUZ, S. C., J.:

the purpose on the propriety of the issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction,petitioner's counsel,Atty. Rowena G. Flores in colloboration with Atty. Jo Blanca Labay and Atty. Raymond G. Ligas as well as private respondent's counsel, Atty. Rydely C. Valmores in colloboration with Atty. Carlos F. Romulo and Atty. Lea Gay M. Josef appeared. Both parties did not appear. When this case was called for hearing on October 12, 2017 for

prayer for the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction as well as the comments and objections of the respondent's counsels, the instant motion is submitted for resolution. After hearing the arguments of the petitioner's counsels for their

37 67 01 ten (10) days from today, or until October 22, 2017. Thereafter, with CA-G.R. SP NO. 152300 Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION directed to submit to this Court their simultaneous memoranda within or without said memoranda, the instant case is deemed submitted for resolution/decision. Accordingly, as agreed in the hearing, both counsels are

000 SO ORDERED (

ORIGINAL SIGNED STEPHEN C. CRUZ

Associate Justice

We CONCur:

ROSMARI D. CARANDANG ORIGINAL SIGNED Associate Justice

ORIGINAL SIGNED NINA G.ANTONIO-VALENZUELA

Associate Justicel

CertIFIER TRUe CORY

Rosario Rfiea Mea E. Binall Divaign Ckerk of Cour COURT OF APPEALS 11-09-17

37679 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF APPEALS Manila

0142 SECOND DIVISION

.0004 AZ 17/13 REALTY, INC. Petitioner, CA-G.R. SP NO. 152300

-versus- Members:

AZUCENA LOCSIN-GARCIA, CRUZ, S. C., and ANTONIO-VALENZUELA, N. G.,JJ. CARANDANG, R. D. Chairperson,

Respondent.

Promulgated:

NOVEMBER 9,2017 Y X

RESOLUTION

CRUZ, S. C., J.:

granting the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), which partly reads as follows: A Resolution' was issued by this Court on September 14, 2017

to this Court within five (5) days from notice hereof. Failure to post of sixty (60) days, unless sooner lifted, prohibiting and enjoining the implementation of the Decision dated August 10, 2017 of the which respondent may suffer by reason of the TRO, if the Court should finally decide that petitioner is not entitled thereto in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand pesos (P300,000.00) payable Temporary Restraining Order(TRO) ex parte, and/or maintaining the staus quo ante effective immediately, for a period SEC En Banc, upon posting a bond to answer for the damages "ACCORDINGLY, this Court hereby resolves to ISSUE a

I Rollo, pp. 335-339.

3767 0142 6 CA-G.R. SP NO. 152300 Page 2 of 10 RESOLUTION the same within the aforesaid period will result to the automatic of receipt of the instant resolution. lifting of the TRO. The parties are REQUIRED to inform this Court of the date

00 e U Preliminary Injunction be set for oral arguments on September 07, 2017 at 2:30 o'clock in the afternoon at the Court of Appeals, Paras Hall, Second Floor, Main Building, Ma. Orosa St., Ermita, Manila for the aforesaid purpose. Let a hearing on the propriety of the issuance of the Writ of

serve the copies of this Resolution to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the parties and their agents and their respective counsel for their information and guidance. The Division Clerk of Court is hereby directed to personally.

SO ORDERED."2

temporarily enjoined during the pendency of the petition would not the propriety of the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction (WPI) but likewise probably tend to render the judgment of this Court during the October 12, 2017 hearing for the purpose of determining appears that petitioner is entitled to the issuance of a WPI as it indubitably proved that the commission of the acts sought to be only cause injustice because of the substantial violation of its rights. ineffectual. and the evidence contained in the records of the instant case, it After considering the arguments presented by both parties

interests during the pendency of the principal action.3 Section1, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court provides: provide protection to parties for the preservation of their rights or Preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy intended to

in which case it shall be known as a preliminary mandatory injunction." preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a party or a court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts. It may also require the performance of a particular act or acts, "Section 1. Preliminary injunction defined; classes. -- A

2Id., pp. 338-339. Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 383 Phil. 398 (2000)

37 67 6 42 01 0006 to avoid injurious consequences which cannot be remedied under a prohibitory injunction, which commands a party to refrain from doing a particular act; or (2) a mandatory injunction, which commands the any standard compensation.4 It is an order granted at any stage of an performance of some positive act to correct a wrong in the past.5 CA-G.R. SP NO. 152300 Page 3 of 10 RESOLUTION action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order. It may be: (1) Injunction is resorted to only when there is a pressing necessity

the grounds for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, whether prohibitive or mandatory, viz: Section 3, Rule 58 of the Revised Rules of Court, enumerates

preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established: "SEC. 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction. --- A

the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the requiring the performance of an act or acts, either for a limited period or perpetually; commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, or in (a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and

work injustice to the applicant; or the act or acts complained of during the litigation would probablyl (b) That the commission, continuance or non-performance of

threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual." (c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing.

Section 5 thereof further provides:

hearing and prior notice to the party or person sought to be enjoined. If it shall appear from facts shown by affidavits or by the verified application that great or irreparable injury would result to the applicant before the matter can be heard on notice, the court to which the application for preliminary injunction was made may exception. - No preliminary injunction shall be granted without "Sec. 5. Preliminary injunction not granted without notice;

4 Unilever Philippines (PRC), Inc., vs. The Honorable COURT OF APPEALS and Procter and Rules of Court, Rule 58, Section 1; Levi Strauss & Co., & Levi Strauss (Phils.) Inc. v. Clinton Gamble Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 119280, August 10, 2006 Apparelle, Inc., G.R. No. 138900, September 20, 2005, 470 SCRA 236, 252.

CA-G.R. SP NO. 152300

3767 G 0142 0007 RESOLUTION Page 4 of 10 why the injunction should not be granted, determine within the granted, and accordingly issue the corresponding order. of twenty (20) days from notice to the party or person sought to be enjoined. Within the said twenty-day period, the court must order said party or person to show cause, at a specified time and place, same period whether or not the preliminary injunction shall be issue a temporary restraining order to be effective only for a period

a multiple-sala court or the presiding judge of a single-sala court before whom the case is pending shall conduct a summary hearing to determine whether the temporary restraining order shall be heard. In no case shall the total period of effectivity of the temporary restraining order exceed twenty (20) days, including the original seventy-two hours provided herein. sections, if the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury, the executive judge of may issue ex parte a temporary restraining order effective for only seventy-two (72) hours from issuance but he shall immediately comply with the provisions of the next preceding section as to service of summons and the documents to be served therewith. Thereafter, within the aforesaid seventy-two (72) hours, the judge extended until the application for preliminary injunction can be However, and subject to the provisions of the preceding

denied or not resolved within the said period, the temporary restraining order is deemed automatically vacated. The effectivity of a temporary restraining order is not extendible without need of any judicial declaration to that effect and no court shall have authority to extend or renew the same on the same ground for which it was issued. In the event that the application for preliminary injunction is

thereof, the temporary restraining order shall' be effective for sixty thereof shall be effective until further orders. A restraining order issued by the Supreme Court or a member (60) days from notice to the party or person sought to be enjoined However, if issued by the Court of Appeals or a member

XXXXXX: XXX

be issued, to wit: (a) extreme urgency, and (b) grave and irreparable injury will be suffered by the applicant. elements must be present before a Writ of Preliminary Injunction may From the foregoing provisions, it is clear that the following

37679 RESOLUTION CA-G.R. SP NO. 152300 Page 5 of 10 In addition, the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of

0142 European Resources and Technologies, Inc, et. al., vs. Ingenieuburo Birkhahn + Nolte, et. al., ruled that prior to the issuance of a WPI, the

existence of some requirements must be proved, to wit:

.0008 the following requisites are present: (1) there must be a right in esse or the existence of a right to be protected; and (2) the act against which injunction to be directed is a violation of such right. be protected, which is directly threatened by the act sought to be right is material and substantial and that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent a serious damage. injunction to be proper, it must be shown that the invasion of the right sought to be protected is material and substantial, that the urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage." The onus probandi is on movant to show that there exists a right to enjoined. Further, there must be a showing that the invasion of the Thus, it is clear that for the issuance of the writ of preliminary right of complainant is clear and unmistakable and that there is an "Before an injunctive writ can be issued, it is essential that

Lukang vs. Pagbilao Development Corporation, et. al.,7 where the Honorable Supreme Court explained: The foregoing requisites were synthesized in the recent case of

is adjunct to a main suit, as well as a preservative remedy issued to maintain the status quo of the things subject of the action or the relations between the parties during the pendency of the suit. The purpose of injunction is to prevent threatened or continuous irremediable injury to the parties before their claims can be thoroughly studied and educated. Its sole aim is to preserve the Section 3, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, an application for a writ of status quo until the merits of the case are fully heard. Under preliminary injunction may be granted if the following grounds are established: "A writ of preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy which

period or perpetually; consists in restraining the commission or continuance performance of an act or acts, either for a limited (a demanded, and the whole or part of such relief of the act or acts complained of, or in requiring the That the applicant is entitled to the relief

7 G.R. No. 195374, March 10, 2014. 6G.R. No. 159586, July 26, 2004.

37 42 67 001 L 01 petitioner's certificate of registration. The issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction is conditioned upon the posting by petitioner of respondent Azucena Locsin-Garcia may suffer or sustain by reason of the issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction should this Court finally decide that petitioner is not entitled thereto, and shall remain in Page 10 of 10 a BOND, in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00), which will answer for any and all damages which full force and effect until the Petition for Review is finally decided. RESOLUTION CA-G.R. SP NO. 152300

bond previously posted by petitioners pursuant to Our Resolution dated September 14, 2017, in order that it may serve as condition sine qua non for the issuance of the instant Writ of Preliminary Injunction. The Bondsman is hereby directed to accordingly amend the

receipt of the instant resolution. The parties are REQUIRED to inform this Court of the date of

Exchange Commission, the parties and their agents and their serve with dispatch the copies of this Resolution to the Securities and respective counsel for their information and guidance. The Division Clerk of Court is hereby directed to personally

SO oRdEREd.

ORIGINAL SIGNED STEPHEN C.CRUZ

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ROSMARI D. CARANDANG Associate Justice ORIGINAL SIGNED

NINA G. ANTONIO-VALENZUELA ORIGINAL SIGNED Associate Justice

OERTIFD THUE COPY

Bost Afea Mea E. Binalla Divion Clerk of Court CHIRT OF APPEALS l09 n