RULE 58 Preliminary Injunction

Case Title: MILA VIRTUSIO, complainant, vs. ATTY. GRENALYN V. VIRTUSIO, respondent. Case Nature: ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. Failure to Use Money Given by Another to Fund the Checks She Issued as Accommodation Party and Performing Notarial Act Without Commission. On January 29, 1997, PTEI entered into a seven-year term loan agreement with PNB for the amount of P320 million, or its US dollar equivalent, in view of urgent need for additional funding for the completion of its ongoing projects in Lapu-Lapu City. As security for the payment of the loan, a Real Estate Mortgage over 48 parcels of land covering an aggregate area of 353,916 sq.m. Together with the buildings and improvements thereon, was executed by PTEI in favor of PNB on February 21, 1997. On June 15, 1998, upon the request of PTEI, an Amendment to Loan Agreement wa s signed by PNB and PTEI To (i) extend the grace period for the principal repayment of the Loan, (ii) amend the interest payment date of the Loan, and (iii) grant in favor of the Borrower an additional Loan (the "Additional Loan") in the amount not exceeding P80,000,000.00, x x x.10rll On the same day, June 15, 1998, as a result of PTEIs transfer to BAGCCI of the ownership, title and interest over 199,134 sq.m. Of the real properties mortgaged to PNB, PTEI executed an Amendment to Real Estate Mortgage11rll in favor of PNB with BAGCCI as accommodation mortgagor with respect to the real properties transferred to it by PTEI. Issue: A writ of preliminary injunction is issued to prevent an extrajudicial foreclosure, only upon a clear showing of a violation of the mortgagors unmistakable right. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The November 17, 2005 Decision and the March 1, 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 89135, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The November 30, 2004 Order of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 148, Makati City, ordering Acropolis to comply with the terms of its counter-bond and pay UPPC the unpaid balance of the judgment in the amount of P27,048,568.78 with interest of 12% per annum from default is REINSTATED.

G.R. No. 188768 January 7, 2013 TML GASKET INDUSTRIES, INC., Petitioner, vs.BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., Respondent.

FACTS: Sometime in September 1996, TML obtained a loan from the Bank of Southeast Asia, Inc. (BSA), which TML can avail via a credit facility of 85,000,000.00. As security for the loan, TML executed a real estate mortgage over commercial and industrial lots located at Dr. A. Santos Avenue, Paraaque City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. 81278 and 81303 of the Registry of Deeds of Paraaque City. For additional security, BSA required TML to execute a promissory note for each availment from the credit facility. We are urged in this petition for review on certiorari to reverse and set aside the Decision [1] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R . SP No . 81932 which, in tum, reversed the Orders, [2] respectively dated 22 August 2003 and 27 November 2003, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 194, Paraaque City in Civil Case No. 02-0504. The assailed Orders issued a writ of preliminary injunction in favor of petitioner TML GasketIndustries , Inc . (TML ), enjoining respondent BPI Family Savings Bank , Inc .s (BPIs) extrajudicial foreclosure of TML s mortgaged properties, and denied TML s motion for reconsideration thereof. The facts are not in dispute. Sometime in September 1996, TML

ISSUE: whether or not the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when it revoked its previous order and subsequently issued a writ of preliminary injunction. Provisional Remedies; Preliminary Injunction; A writ of preliminary injunction may be issued only upon clear showing of an actual existing right to be protected during the pendency of the principal action. Section 3, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court lists the grounds for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction: SEC. 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction.A preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established: (a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief. All told, there is no reversible error in the appellate courts decision, reversing and setting aside the Orders dated 22 August 2003 and 27 November 2003 of the trial court and lifting the writ of preliminary Injunction issued in favor of TML WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 81932 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

Case Title: EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, SECRETARY OF FINANCE, COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Port of Aparri, Cagayan, DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Port of San Fernando, La Union, and HEAD OF THE LAND TRANSPORTATION OFFICE, petitioners, vs. FORERUNNER MULTI RESOURCES, INC., respondent. FACTS: Executive Order No. 156 (EO 156) 1 , issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (President Arroyo) on 12 December 2002, imposes a partial ban on the importation of used motor vehicles.4rl1 The ban is part of several measures EO 156 adopts to "accelerate the sound development of the motor vehicle industry in the Philippines. In Executive Secretary v. South wing Heavy Industries, Inc. and two related petitions6rl1 (collectively, South wing), we found EO 156 a valid executive issuance enforceable throughout the Philippine customs territory, except in the Subic Special Economic and Freeport Zone in Zambales (Subic Freeport) by virtue of its status as a "separate customs territory" under Republic Act No. 7227 Respondent Forerunner Multi Resources, Inc. (respondent), a corporation engaged in the importation of used motor vehicles via the ports of Aparri, Cagayan and San Fernando, La Union, sued the government in the Regional Trial Court of Aparri, Cagayan (trial court) to declare invalid EO 156, impleading petitioner public officials as respondents.8rl1Respondent attacked EO 156 for (1) having been issued by President Arroyo ultra vires; (2) trenching the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution; and (3) having been superseded by Executive Order No. 418 (EO 418),9rl1 issued by President Arroyo on 4 April 2005, modifying the tariff rates of imported used motor vehicles. Respondent sought a preliminary injunctive writ to enjoin, litis pendentia, the enforcement of EO 156. ISSUE: The question is whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting preliminary injunctive relief respondent to enjoin enforcement of EO 156. It is a deeply ingrained doctrine in Philippine remedial law that a preliminary injunctive writ under Rule 58 issues only upon a showing of the applicants clear legal right being violated or under threat of violation by the defendant. WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the Decision dated 27 June 2011 and the Resolution dated 14 November 2011 of the Court of Appeals. The Order dated 7 July 2010 of the Regional Trial Court of Aparri, Cagayan, Branch 10, is REINSTATED. The temporary restraining order issued on 16 January 2012 is made PERMANENT.

G.R . No . 170770 . January 9 , 2013 . VITALIANO N . AGUIRRE II andFIDEL N . AGUIRRE , petitioners , vs . FQB +7 , INC ., NATHANIEL D . BOC OBO , PRISCILA BOCOBO andANTONIO DE VILLA , respondents . FACTS: Preliminary injunction; requirement of actual and existing right. Petitioners argument fails to impress. The CA did not nullify the October 15, 2004 Order merely because of the interchanged pages. Instead, the CA determined that the applicant, Vitaliano, was not able to show that he had an actual and existing right that had to be protected by a preliminary injunction. The most that Vitaliano was able to prove was a future right based on his victory in the suit. Contrasting this future right of Vitaliano with respondents existing right under the GIS, the CA determined that the trial court should not have disturbed the status quo. Vitaliano Aguirre II and Fidel Aguirre v. FQB+7, Inc., Nathaniel Bocobo, PriscilaBocobo, and Antonio De Villa, G.R. No. 170770. January 9, 2013 Pursuant to Section 145 of the Corporation Code, an existing intra-corporate dispute, which does not constitute a continuation of corporate business, is not affected by the subsequent dissolution of the corporation. ISSUE: PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals. Corporation Law; Dissolution of Corporations; Section 122 of the Corporation Code prohibits a dissolved corporation from continuing its business, but allows it to continue with a limited personality in order to settle and close its affairs, including its complete liquidation. A corporations board of directors is not rendered functus officio by its dissolution. Since Section 122 allows a corporation to continue its existence for a limited purpose, necessarily there must be a board that will continue acting for and on behalf of the dissolved corporation for that purpose. Same; Intra-Corporate Controversies; Regional Trial Courts; Jurisdiction; Republic Act No. 8799 conferred jurisdiction over intra-corporate controversies on courts of general jurisdiction or Regional Trial Courts (RTCs), to be designated by the Supreme Court. Same; Republic Act No. 8799; So long as the dispute is intra-corporate, the Regional Trial Court, acting as a special commercial court, has jurisdiction over it.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The assailed June 29, 2005 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 87293, as well as its December 16, 2005 Resolution, are ANNULLED with respect to their dismissal of SEC Case No. 04-111077 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The said case is ordered REINSTATED before Branch 24 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila. The rest of the assailed issuances are AFFIRMED.

G.R. No. 174385. February 20 , 2013 .

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs . HON . RAMON S . CAGUIOA , Presiding Judge , Branch 74 , Regiona l Trial Court , ThirdJudicial Region , Olongapo City , META TRANS TRADING INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION , and HUNDREDYOUNG SUBIC INTERNATIONAL , INC ., respondents .

The present petition the challenge to the August 11, 2005 and July 5, 2006 orders of respondent Judge Ramon S .Caguioa , Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City , Branch 74 , in Civil Case No . 102-0-05. The August 11, 2005 order granted the motion to intervene filed by private respondents2. Metatrans Trading International Corporation and Hundred Young Subic Internatio nal , Inc ., while the July 5, 2006 order denied the motion for reconsideration and the motion to suspend the proceedings filed by the petitioner Republic of the Philippines (Republic ). FACTS: On March 14, 2005, [3] Indigo Distribution Corporation and thirteen other petitioners (collectively referred to as lower court petitioners) filed before the respondent judge a petition for declaratory relief with prayer for temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary mandatory injunction against the Honorable Secretary of Finance, et al. The petition sought to nullify the implementation of Section 6 of3. /or a writ of preliminary injunction. By motion dated July 21, 2005 filed before the lower court, the Republicasked the respondent judge to suspend the proceedings pending the resolution of G.R. No. 168584. On August 5, 2005, the private respondents (in the present petition now before us) filed before the respondent judge motions for leave to intervene and to admit complaints-in-intervention. They also asked in these motions that the respondent judge extend to them the effects and benefits of his May 4, 2005 order, in the lower court petitioners favor, and the subsequently issued May 11, 2005 writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. Without acting on the Republics motion to suspend for declaratory relief (Civil Case No. 102-0- 05). The petition included a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and /or a TRO to enjoin the Republic (acting through the SBMA) from enforcing the challenged memorandum. On May 4, 2005, the respondent judge granted the lower court petitioners application for preliminary injunction despite the Republics opposition, and on May 11, 2005, he issued the preliminary injunction. The Republic filed before this Court a petition for certiorari and prohibitions docketed in this Court as G.R. No. 168584sto annul the respondent judges order and the writ issued pursuant to this order. In light of these supervening events, the Court sees no reason to resolve the other matters raised in this petition for being moot.
WHEREFORE, under these premises, we PARTIALLY GRANT the petition. We GRANT the writ of certiorari and accordingly SET ASIDE the orders dated August 11, 2005 and July 5, 2006 of respondent Judge Ramon S. Caguioa in Civil Case No. 102-0-05 for being NULL and VOID. We DISMISS the prayer for writ of prohibition on the ground of mootness. Costs against Metatrans Trading International Corporation and Hundred Young Subic International, Inc.So ordered.