Kristle-Liz Ignacio dela Cruz Civil Procedure Atty.Henedino Joseph P. Eduarte,Jr.

LLB-2 December 7,2013 Page 1

G.R. No. 199324 : January 7, 2013 EXECUTIVE SECRETARY v. FORERUNNER MULTI RESOURCES, INC Facts: President Gloria M. Arroyo issued EO 156 imposes a partial ban on the importation of used motor vehicle to accelerate the sound development of the motor vehicle industry in the country. The said EO is enforceable throughout the country except in Subic Freeport by virtue of its status as a separate customs territory under RA 7227. Respondent, a corporation engaged in importation of used motor vehicle via ports of Appari, La Union and San Fernando, sued government to declare EO 156 invalid having been it superseded by EO 418 modifying the tariff rates of imported used motor vehicle, sought a preliminary injunctive to enjoin, litis pendentia, the enforcement of EO 156. RTC granted the relief. On petitioners motion, RTC reconsidered its order and lifted the writ grounding its ruling on Southwing which is considered as negating any clear and unmistakable legal right on the part of the respondent to receive `protection of writ of preliminary injunction. Respondent appealed to CA and it granted the preliminary injunction. Thus, an appeal.

Issue: Whether or not CA erred in granting the preliminary injunction writ to respondent.

Held: Yes. The Court of Appeals erred in granting the writ of preliminary injunction. Respondent is without clear legal right to import used vehicles under Rule 58 that preliminary injunction writ issues only upon showing of the applicants `clear legal right being violated or under threat of violation of defendant. It contemplates a right clearly

founded in or granted by law. Any hint of doubt or dispute on the asserted legal rights precludes the grant of preliminary injunction. For suits attacking the validity of laws or issuances with the force and effect of law, as here, the applicant for preliminary injunctive relief bears the added burden of overcoming the presumption of validity inhering in such laws or issuances. These procedural barriers to the issuance of a preliminary injunctive writ are rooted on the equitable nature of such relief, preserving the status quo while, at the same time, restricting the course of action of the defendants even before adverse judgment is rendered against them. Second, the Court of Appeals dwelt on the "grave and irremediable" financial losses respondent was poised to sustain as a result of EO 156s enforcement, finding such prejudice "inequitable." Lastly, E.O. No. 156 is very explicit in its prohibition on the importation of used motor vehicles. On the other hand, E.O. No. 418 merely modifies the tariff and nomenclature rates of import duty on used motor vehicles. Nothing therein expressly revokes the importation ban.