In the Civil & Commercial Procedures Law issued by Royal Decree 29/2002, creditors are ranted a le al remedy !

nown as "#rovisional attachment$ which serves to #rotect the creditor%s ri hts a ainst his debtor& 's #er the #rescribed methodolo y, a creditor may re(uest the Primary Court to issue an order o) #rovisional attachment over the #ro#erties o) his debtor& *he Civil & Commercial Procedures Law has s#eci)ied the cases in which a creditor may e+ercise such a ri ht a ainst his debtor& *hese cases are ,a- i) the creditor is a bearer o) a bill o) e+chan e or #romissory note and the debtor is a merchant and the said instrument obli ates him to adhere to it in accordance with the Commercial Law, and ,b- in any case in which the creditor )ears he may lose his ri hts, #rovided that the creditor must #rove to the Primary Court that such )ear is .usti)ied& *he Civil & Commercial Procedures Law s#eci)ies certain additional conditions which must be met be)ore a #rovisional attachment order can be ranted& /irst, the creditor%s ri ht must be de)inite, meanin the debt u#on which the creditor is relyin on ,+- is in e+istence and ,y- is not based on a #robability or sub.ect to a condition& ,0owever, the debt can be sub.ect o) a dis#ute&- 1econd, the creditor%s ri ht must be matured, meanin that the debt is due and #ayable at the time o) )ilin o) the re(uest )or the #rovisional attachment& In addition, i) the creditor does not #ossess an "e+ecutive deed$ ,such as a )inal non2a##ealable Court .ud ment-, or i) the debt sum is not s#eci)ic ,meanin the s#eci)ic numerical amount o) the indebtedness sum is not !nown-, then the 3ud e issuin the #rovisional attachment order should #rovide a tem#orary estimation o) the debt& 4nce the #rovisional attachment order has been si ned by the 3ud e, the Court must noti)y the debtor within the )ollowin ten days5 otherwise, the #rovisional attachment order shall be considered null and void& /urthermore, the creditor is re(uired, within the above ten days, to )ile a court case, re(uestin the "validation$ o) the #rovisional attachment order& Preliminary Attachment (Rule 57) 6& Preliminary attachment is a #rovisional remedy issued u#on order o) the court where an action is #endin to be levied u#on the #ro#erty o) the de)endant so the #ro#erty may be held by the sheri)) as security )or the satis)action o) whatever .ud ment may be rendered in the case(Davao Light and Power, Inc. vs. CA, 204 SCRA 343)& 2& 7hen availed o) and is ranted in an action #urely in ersona!, it converts the action to one that is "#asi in re!& In an action in re! or "#asi in re!, .urisdiction over the res is su))icient& 3urisdiction over the #erson o) the de)endant is not re(uired ($i%%area% vs. CA, 2&' SCRA '(()& 8& Preliminary attachment is desi ned to9 a& 1ei:e the #ro#erty o) the debtor be)ore )inal .ud ment and #ut the same in c#stodia% egis even while the action is #endin )or the satis)action o) a later .ud ment (Ins#%ar )an* o+ Asia and A!erica vs. CA, (&0 SCRA ,2&)b& *o enable the court to ac(uire .urisdiction over the res or the #ro#erty sub.ect o) the action in cases where service in #erson or any other service to ac(uire .urisdiction over the de)endant cannot be a))ected& ;& Preliminary attachment has three ty#es9 a& Preliminary attachment < one issued at the commencement o) the action or at any time be)ore

entry o) .ud ment as security )or the satis)action o) any .ud ment that may be recovered& 0ere the court ta!es custody o) the #ro#erty o) the #arty a ainst whom attachment is directed& b& =arnishment < #lainti)) see!s to sub.ect either the #ro#erty o) de)endant in the hands o) a third #erson , arnishee- to his claim or the money which said third #erson owes the de)endant& =arnishment does not involve actual sei:ure o) #ro#erty which remains in the hands o) the arnishee& It sim#ly im#ounds the #ro#erty in the arnishee%s #ossession and maintains the stat#s "#o until the main action is )inally decided& =arnishment #roceedin s are usually directed a ainst #ersonal #ro#erty, tan ible or intan ible and whether ca#able o) manual delivery or not& c& Levy on e+ecution < writ issued by the court a)ter .ud ment by which the #ro#erty o) the .ud ment obli or is ta!en into custody o) the court be)ore the sale o) the #ro#erty on e+ecution )or the satis)action o) a )inal .ud ment& It is the #reliminary ste# to the sale on e+ecution o) the #ro#erty o) the .ud ment debtor& >& *he rant o) the remedy is addressed to the discretion o) the court whether or not the a##lication shall be iven )ull credit is discretionary u#on the court& in determinin the #ro#riety o) the rant, the court also considers the #rinci#al case u#on which the #rovisional remedy de#ends& Grounds for issuance of writ of attachment 6& 't the commencement o) the action or at any time be)ore entry o) .ud ment, a #lainti)) or any #ro#er #arty may have the #ro#erty o) the adverse #arty attached as security )or the satis)action o) any .ud ment that may be recovered in the )ollowin cases9 a& In an action )or the recovery o) a s#eci)ied amount o) money or dama es, other than moral and e+em#lary, on a cause o) action arisin )rom law, contract, (uasi2contract, delict or (uasi2delict a ainst a #arty who is about to de#art )rom the Phili##ines with intent to de)raud his creditors5 b& In an action )or money or #ro#erty embe::led or )raudulently misa##lied or converted to his own use by a #ublic o))icer, or an o))icer o) a cor#oration, or an attorney, )actor, bro!er, a ent or cler!, in the course o) his em#loyment as such, or by any other #erson in a )iduciary ca#acity, or )or a will)ul violation o) duty5 c& In an action to recover the #ossession o) #ro#erty un.ustly or )raudulently ta!en, detained or converted, when the #ro#erty, or any #arty thereo), has been concealed, removed, or dis#osed o) to #revent its bein )ound or ta!en by the a##licant or an authori:ed #erson5 d& In an action a ainst a #arty who has been uilty o) a )raud in contractin the debt or incurrin the obli ation u#on which the action the action is brou ht, or in the #er)ormance thereo)5 e& In an action a ainst a #arty who has removed or dis#osed o) his #ro#erty, or is about to do so, with intent to de)raud his creditors5 or )& In an action a ainst a #arty who does not reside and is not )ound in the Phili##ines, or on whom summons may be served by #ublication (Sec. ()& Requisites

6&

*he issuance o) an order/writ o) e+ecution re(uires the )ollowin 9 a& *he case must be any o) those where #reliminary attachment is #ro#er5 b& *he a##licant must )ile a motion , e. arte or with notice and hearin -5 c& *he a##licant must show by a))idavit ,under oaththat there is no su))icient security )or the claim sou ht to be en)orced5 that the amount claimed in the action is as much as the sum o) which the order is ranted above all counterclaims5 and d& *he a##licant must #ost a bond e+ecuted to the adverse #arty& *his is called an attachment bond, which answers )or all dama es incurred by the #arty a ainst whom the attachment was issued and sustained by him by reason o) the attachment (Car%os vs. Sandova%, 4/( SCRA 2,,)&

Issuance and contents of order of attachment; affidavit and bond 6& 'n order o) attachment may be issued either e. arte or u#on motion with notice and hearin by the court in which the action is #endin , or by the C' or the 1C, and must re(uire the sheri)) o) the court to attach so much o) the #ro#erty in the Phili##ines o) the #arty a ainst whom it is issued, not e+em#t )rom e+ecution, as may be su))icient to satis)y the a##licant%s demand, unless such #arty ma!es de#osit or ives a bond in an amount e(ual to that )i+ed in the order, which may be the amount su))icient to satis)y the a##licant%s demand or the value o) the #ro#erty to be attached as stated by the a##licant, e+clusive o) costs& 1everal writs may be issued at the same time to the sheri))s o) the courts o) di))erent .udicial re ions (Sec. 2)& 2& 'n order o) attachment shall be ranted only when it a##ears by the a))idavit o) the a##licant, or o) some other #erson who #ersonally !nows the )acts, that a su))icient cause o) action e+ists, that the case is one o) those mentioned in 1ection6, that there is no other su))icient security )or the claim sou ht to be en)orced by the action, and that the amount due to the a##licant, or the value o) the #ro#erty the #ossession o) which he is entitled to recover, is as much as the sum )or which the order is ranted above all le al counterclaims& *he a))idavit, and the bond must be )iled with the court be)ore the order issues (Sec. 3)& Rule on rior or contem oraneous service of summons 6& ?o levy on attachment #ursuant to the writ o) #reliminary attachment shall be en)orced unless it is #receded, or contem#oraneously accom#anied, by the service o) summons, to ether with a co#y o) the com#laint, the a##lication )or attachment, the a##licant%s a))idavit and bond, and the order and writ o) attachment, on the de)endant within the Phili##ines& 2& *he re(uirement o) #rior or contem#oraneous service o) summons shall not a##ly in the )ollowin instances9 a& 7here the summons could not be served #ersonally or by substituted service des#ite dili ent e))orts5 b& *he de)endant is a resident o) the Phili##ines who is tem#orarily out o) the country5 c& *he de)endant is a non2resident5 or d& *he action is one in re! or "#asi in re!(Sec. ')&

!anner of attachin" real and ersonal ro erty; when ro erty attached is claimed by third erson Sec. /. Attach!ent o+ rea% and ersona% ro ert0recording thereo+. 1 Real and #ersonal #ro#erty shall be attached by the sheri)) e+ecutin the writ in the )ollowin manner9 ,a- Real #ro#erty, or rowin cro#s thereon, or any interest therein, standin u#on the record o) the re istry o) deeds o) the #rovince in the name o) the #arty a ainst whom attachment is issued, or not a##earin at all u#on such records, or belon in to the #arty a ainst whom attachment is issued and held by any other #erson, or standin on the records o) the re istry o) deeds in the name o) any other #erson, by )ilin with the re istry o) deeds a co#y o) the order, to ether with a descri#tion o) the #ro#erty attached, and a notice that it is attached, or that such real #ro#erty and any interest therein held by or standin in the name o) such other #erson are attached, and by leavin a co#y o) such order, descri#tion, and notice with the occu#ant o) the #ro#erty, i) any, or with such other #erson or his a ent i) )ound within the #rovince& 7here the #ro#erty has been brou ht under the o#eration o) either the Land Re istration 'ct or the Pro#erty Re istration Decree, the notice shall contain a re)erence to the number o) the certi)icate o) title, the volume and #a e in the re istration boo! where the certi)icate is re istered, and the re istered owner or owners thereo)& *he re istrar o) deeds must inde+ attachments )iled under this section in the names o) the a##licant, the adverse #arty, or the #erson by whom the #ro#erty is held or in whose name it stands in the records& I) the attachment is not claimed on the entire area o) the land covered by the certi)icate o) title, a descri#tion su))iciently accurate )or the identi)ication o) the land or interest to be a))ected shall be included in the re istration o) such attachment5 ,b- Personal #ro#erty ca#able o) manual delivery, by ta!in and sa)ely !ee#in it in his custody, a)ter issuin the corres#ondin recei#t there)or5 ,c- 1toc!s or shares, or an interest in stoc!s or shares, o) any cor#oration or com#any, by leavin with the #resident or mana in a ent thereo), a co#y o) the writ, and a notice statin that the stoc! or interest o) the #arty a ainst whom the attachment is issued is attached in #ursuance o) such writ5 ,d- Debts and credits, includin ban! de#osits, )inancial interest, royalties, commissions and other #ersonal #ro#erty not ca#able o) manual delivery, by leavin with the #erson owin such debts, or havin in his #ossession or under his control, such credits or other #ersonal #ro#erty, or with his a ent, a co#y o) the writ, and notice that the debts owin by him to the #arty a ainst whom attachment is issued, and the credits and other #ersonal #ro#erty in his #ossession, or under his control, belon in to said #arty, are attached in #ursuance o) such writ5 ,e- *he interest o) the #arty a ainst whom attachment is issued in #ro#erty belon in to the estate o) the decedent, whether as heir, le atee, or devisee, by servin the e+ecutor or administrator or other #ersonal re#resentative o) the decedent with a co#y o) the writ and notice that said interest is attached& ' co#y o) said writ o) attachment and o) said notice shall also be )iled in the o))ice o) the cler! o) the court in which said estate is bein settled and served u#on the heir, le atee or devisee concerned& I) the #ro#erty sou ht to be attached is in c#stodia %egis, a co#y o) the writ o) attachment shall be )iled with the #ro#er court or (uasi2.udicial a ency, and notice o) the attachment served u#on the custodian o) such #ro#erty&

#ertain remedies available to a third erson not arty to the action but whose ro erty is the sub$ect of e%ecution& a& *erceria < by ma!in an a))idavit o) his title thereto or his ri ht to #ossession thereo), statin the rounds o) such ri ht or title& *he a))idavit must be served u#on the sheri)) and the attachin #arty (Sec. (4)& @#on service o) the a))idavit u#on him, the sheri)) shall not be bound to !ee# the #ro#erty under attachment e+ce#t i) the attachin #arty )iles a bond a##roved by the court& the sheri)) shall not be liable )or dama es )or the ta!in or !ee#in o) the #ro#erty, i) such bond shall be )iled& b& A+clusion or release o) #ro#erty < @#on a##lication o) the third #erson throu h a motion to set aside the levy on attachment, the court shall order a summary hearin )or the #ur#ose o) determinin whether the sheri)) has acted ri htly or wron ly in the #er)ormance o) his duties in the e+ecution o) the writ o) attachment& *he court may order the sheri)) to release the #ro#erty )rom the erroneous levy and to return the same to the third #erson& In resolvin the a##lication, the court cannot #ass u#on the (uestion o) title to the #ro#erty with any character o) )inality but only inso)ar as may be necessary to decide i) the sheri)) has acted correctly or not (Ching vs. CA, 423 SCRA 3',)& c& Intervention < this is #ossible because no .ud ment has yet been rendered and under the rules, a motion )or intervention may be )iled any time be)ore the rendition o) the .ud ment by the trial court (Sec. 2, R#%e (&)& d& 'ccion Reivindicatoria < *he third #arty claimant is not #recluded by 1ec& 6;, Rule >B )rom vindicatin his claim to the #ro#erty in the same or in a se#arate action& 0e may )ile a se#arate action to nulli)y the levy with dama es resultin )rom the unlaw)ul levy and sei:ure& *his action may be a totally distinct action )rom the )ormer case& 'ischar"e of attachment and the counter(bond 6& I) the attachment has already been en)orced, the #arty whose #ro#erty has been attached may )ile a motion to dischar e the attachment& *his motion shall be with notice and hearin & ')ter due notice and hearin , the court shall dischar e the attachment i) the movants ma!es a cash de#osit or )iles a counter2bond e+ecuted to the attachin #arty with the cler! o) court where the a##lication is made in an amount e(ual to that )i+ed by the court in the order o) attachment, e+clusive o) costs& Counter2bonds are re#lacements o) the #ro#erty )ormerly attached, and .ust as the latter, may be levied u#on a)ter )inal .ud ment& ?ote that the mere #ostin o) counterbond does not automatically dischar e the writ o) attachment& It is only a)ter the hearin and a)ter the .ud e has ordered the dischar e o) attachment that the same is #ro#erly dischar ed (Sec. (2)& 2& 'ttachment may li!ewise be dischar ed without the need )or )ilin o) a counter2bond& *his is #ossible when the #arty whose #ro#erty has been attached )iles a motion to set aside or dischar e the attachment and durin the hearin o) the motion, he #roves that9

a& *he attachment was im#ro#erly or irre ularly issued or en)orced5 or b& *he bond o) the attachin creditor is insu))icient5 or c& *he attachment is e+cessive and must be dischar ed as to the e+cess (Sec. (3)5 or d& *he #ro#erty is e+em#t )rom e+ecution, and as such is also e+em#t )rom #reliminary attachment (Sec. 2)& R)*+ 57 ( PR+*I!I,AR- A..A#/!+,. It is evident that the (uestioned writ o) attachment was anchored u#on 1ection 6,d-, Rule >B o) the Revised Rules o) Court, to wit 2 C1AC*I4? 6& =rounds u#on which attachment may issue& 2 ' #lainti)) or any #ro#er #arty may, at the commencement o) the action or at any time therea)ter, have the #ro#erty o) the adverse #arty attached as security )or the satis)action o) any .ud ment that may be recovered in the )ollowin cases9 + + + + + + + + +& ,d- In an action a ainst a #arty who has been uilty o) a )raud in contractin the debt or incurrin the obli ation u#on which the action is brou ht, or in concealin or dis#osin o) the #ro#erty )or the ta!in , detention or conversion o) which the action is brou ht5 + + + + + + + + +&C 0ustice -nares(1antia"o2 3irst 'ivision2 3##4,1.R)#.I4, GR4)P2 I,#52 and 3RA,#I1 #5 -)2 etitioners2 vs5 ./+ #4)R. 43 APP+A*12 ./+ /4,5 041+ #5 '+ *A RA!A2 Presidin" 0ud"e2 6ranch 7892 Re"ional .rial #ourt2 ,#0R2 !a:ati #ity2 !etro !anila2 and *+#4,1.R)#.I4, A,' '+;+*4P!+,. #4RP4RA.I4,2 res ondents <G5R5 ,o5 7=885>5 3ebruary 72 =???@ In Liberty Insurance Cor#oration vs& Court o) '##eals, D=&R& ?o& 60;;0>, 222 1CR' 8B, ;> D6998 E& *his Court, discussin 1ection 6,d-, Rule >B, cautioned as )ollows 22 *o sustain an attachment on this round, it must be shown that the debtor in contractin the debt or incurrin the obli ation intended to de)raud the creditor& *he )raud must relate to the e+ecution o) the a reement and must have been the reason which induced the other #arty into ivin consent which he would not have otherwise iven& *o constitute a round )or attachment in 1ection 6 ,d-, Rule >B o) the Rules o) Court, )raud should be committed u#on contractin the obli ation sued u#on& ' debt is )raudulently contracted i) at the time o) contractin it the debtor has a #reconceived #lan or intention not to #ay, as it is in this case& /raud is a state o) mind and need not be #roved by direct evidence but may be in)erred )rom the circumstances attendant in each case& ,Re#ublic v& =on:ales, 68 1CR' F88-& /rom the )ore oin , there)ore, the alle ed inducement by the DP70 o))icials u#on #rivate res#ondent as well as the circumstances surroundin the e+ecution o) the .oint venture a reement, both a##ear immaterial as they were not committed u#on contractin the obli ation sued u#on but occurred lon a)ter the obli ation has been established& *he )act that #etitioners have #aid a substantial amount o) money to #rivate res#ondent cannot save the day )or them either& 's #er their own accountin , such #ayments were )or accounts #ayable )or labor su##lied, construction materials

and cash advances& It is not denied that no #ayment o) #ro)its has been iven to #rivate res#ondent, which is #recisely what it is suin )or& /inally, considerin that the writ o) #reliminary attachment has been issued on account o) alle ations o) )raud in contractin the obli ation u#on which the action is brou ht #etitionersG e))orts to have the writ o) #reliminary attachment dissolved on the round that it was im#ro#erly or irre ularly issued is in vain& Indeed, in Liberty Insurance Cor#oration, su#ra, which cited Hindanao 1avin s and Loan 'ssoc& vs& Court o) '##eals ,6B2 1CR' ;I0-, we ruled 2 C+ + +, when the #reliminary attachment is issued u#on a round which is at the same time the a##licantGs cause o) action9 e& &, + + + an action a ainst a #arty who has been uilty o) )raud in contractin the debt or incurrin the obli ation u#on which the action is brou ht, the de)endant is not allowed to )ile a motion to dissolve the attachment under 1ection 68 o) Rule >B by o))erin to show the )alsity o) the )actual averments in the #lainti))%s a##lication and a))idavits on which the writ was based and conse(uently that the writ based therein had been im#ro#erly or irre ularly issued 2 the reason bein that the hearin on such motion )or dissolution o) the writ would be tantamount to a trial on the merits& In other words, the merits o) the action would be ventilated at a mere hearin o) a motion5 instead o) the re ular trial& *here)ore, when the writ o) attachment is o) this nature, the only way it can be dissolved is by a counterbond&C 0ustice Pan"aniban2 .hird 'ivision2 *I! .4,G *I!2 petitioner, vs. P/I*IPPI,+ 3I1/I,G G+AR I,')1.RI+12 I,#2 respondent5 <G5R5 ,o5 78ABB>5 ,ovember 82 7999@ 1ection 6, Rule >B o) the 699B Rules o) Court& D1AC*I4? 6& =rounds u#on which attachment may issue& < 't the commencement o) the action or at any time be)ore entry o) .ud ment, a #lainti)) or any #ro#er #arty may have the #ro#erty o) the adverse #arty attached as security )or the satis)action o) any .ud ment that may be recovered in the )ollowin cases9 ,aIn an action )or the recovery o) a s#eci)ied amount o) money or dama es, other than moral or e+em#lary, on a cause o) action arisin )rom law, contract, (uasi2contract, delict or (uasi2delict a ainst a #arty who is about to de#art )rom the Phili##ines with intent to de)raud his creditors5 ,bIn an action )or money or #ro#erty embe::led or )raudulently misa##lied or converted to his own use by a #ublic o))icer, or an o))icer o) a cor#oration, or an attorney, )actor, bro!er, a ent or cler!, in the course o) his em#loyment as such, or by any other #erson in a )iduciary ca#acity, or )or a will)ul violation o) duty5 ,cIn an action to recover the #ossession o) the #ro#erty un.ustly or )raudulently ta!en, detained or converted, when the #ro#erty or any #art thereo), has been concealed, removed, or dis#osed o) to #revent its bein )ound or ta!en by the a##licant or an authori:ed #erson5 ,d- In an action a ainst a #arty who has been uilty o) a )raud in contractin the debt or incurrin the obli ation u#on which the action is brou ht, or in the #er)ormance thereo)5

,e- In an action a ainst a #arty who has removed or dis#osed o) his #ro#erty or is about to do so, with intent to de)raud his creditors5 or ,)- In an action a ainst a #arty who does not reside and is not )ound in the Phili##ines, or on whom summons may be served by #ublication& In the meantime, on 3anuary 28, 699>, the 1u#reme Court en 2anc issued its decision in the consolidated cases o) Re#ublic vs& 1andi anbayan (3irst Division), 240 SCRA 3/, ((&&')& *he decision included the nulli)ication o) the resolution o) the 1andi anbayan that li)ted the writ o) se(uestration o) LJLC #ro#erties in =&R& ?o& 60986;& 0ence, the Court e))ectively con)irmed the validity o) the writ o) se(uestration over said #ro#erties& Peter '& 1abidoGs motion )or reconsideration was denied& /inally, an entry o) .ud ment was issued on '#ril 22, 699B, in =&R& ?o& 60986;& Petitioner contends that the R*C o) Lian a has no .urisdiction over the sub.ect matter o) the case inasmuch as the same are under se(uestration by the PC==& Citin Jaseco vs& PC==, ('0 SCRA (4( ((&4/), #etitioner asserts that the se(uestered assets have been #laced under c#stodia %egis o) the PC== #endin the )inal determination by the 1andi anbayan that said assets are in )act ill2 otten& 0ence, the R*C has no .urisdiction to order the attachment o) said se(uestered #ro#erties& Private res#ondent, however avers that his ori inal com#laint was )or a sum o) money& It was a demand )or #ayment o) a valid obli ation owed to him by LJLC& 0e adds that it would be un)air and un.ust to declare the entire R*C #roceedin s re ardin his claim )or sum o) money null and void& Private res#ondent )urther claims that the attachment order o) the trial court was issued a)ter the 1andi anbayan had li)ted the writ o) se(uestration a ainst LJLC& Jut #etitioner asserts that this order o) the 1andi anbayan was reversed by the 1u#reme Court in a 2anc decision dated 3anuary 28, 699>, resolvin several consolidated cases )or which =&R& ?o& 60986; was included& Petitioner stresses that said reversal had become )inal and e+ecutory on '#ril 22, 699B& In P'=C4R vs& C', 2/' SCRA 4335434 ((&&/), involvin ownershi# by Phili##ine Casino 4#erators Cor#oration ,PC4C- over several amin and o))ice e(ui#ment durin the time that PC4C was under a se(uestration by PC==, the Court ruled9 C7e disa ree with the R*C and the C' on the issue o) .urisdiction& 7hile there can be no dis#ute that PC4C was se(uestered, the )act o) se(uestration alone did not automatically oust the R*C o) .urisdiction to decide u#on the (uestion o) ownershi# o) the sub.ect amin and o))ice e(ui#ment& *he PC== must be a #arty to the suit in order that the 1andi anbayanGs e+clusive .urisdiction may be correctly invo!ed& *his is deducible )rom no less than A&4& ?o& 6;, the 6Pe7a6 and 68e o!#ceno6 cases relied u#on by both subordinate courts& ?ote that in 1ection 2 o) A&4& ?o& 6; which #rovides9 K1ec& 2& *he Presidential Commission on =ood =overnment shall )ile all such cases, whether civil or criminal, with the 1andi anbayan, which shall have e+clusive and ori inal .urisdiction thereo)&% It s#ea!s o) the PC== as #arty2#lainti))& 4n the other hand, the PC== was im#leaded as co2 de)endant in both the 6Pe7a6 and 68e o!#ceno6 cases& Jut here, the PC== does not a##ear in either ca#acity, as the com#laint is solely between P'=C4R

and res#ondents PC4C and Harcelo& *he 6Pe7a6 and 68e o!#ceno9 cases which reco ni:e the inde#endence o) the PC== and the 1andi anbayan in se(uestration cases, there)ore, cannot be invo!ed in the instant case so as to divest the R*C o) its .urisdiction, under 1ection 69 o) J&P& Jl & 629, over P'=C4RGs action )or recovery o) #ersonal #ro#erty&C In the case at bar, the claim o) #rivate res#ondent 0un Hin Lu! is )or a sum o) money arisin )rom a debt incurred by LJLC& @nder a contract, #rivate res#ondent had e+tended cash advances and su##lied LJLC hardware materials, auto s#are #arts, and rendered services, )or cuttin and haulin lo s& *he total claim amounts to P6I,086,>F8&BI& /ollowin 1ection 69 o) J&P& Jl & 629, as amended by R&'& ?o& BF96 on Harch 2>, 699;, the com#laint )alls within the .urisdiction o) the Re ional *rial Court, vi:; C1ec& 69& <#risdiction in civi% cases. 22 Re ional *rial Courts shall e+ercise e+clusive ori inal .urisdiction9 +++ ,I- In all other cases in which the demand, e+clusive o) interest, dama es o) whatever !ind, attorneyGs )ees, liti ation e+#enses, and costs or the value o) the #ro#erty in controversy e+ceeds 4ne hundred thousand #esos ,P600,000&00- or, in such other cases in Hetro Hanila, where the demand, e+clusive o) the above2mentioned items e+ceeds *wo hundred thousand #esos ,P200,000-&C Petitioner relies, however, on the case o) PC== vs& PeMa, ('& SCRA '', ((&44) and asserts that the controversy o) LJLC or a se(uestered com#any )alls within the e+clusive .urisdiction o) the 1andi anbayan and not o) the trial court& In the Pe7a case, the trial court issued a tem#orary restrainin order which #revented PC== )rom en)orcin the memorandum o) then PC== Commissioner Hary Conce#cion Jautista& 0er memorandum denied com#lainantGs authority to si n and mana e the )unds o) the se(uestered com#any& *he 1u#reme Court ruled that the trial court had no .urisdiction over PC== bein a co2 e(ual body, and there)ore, the re ional trial courts may not inter)ere with and restrain the PC== or set aside the order and actions o) its Commissioner& In contrast, the case now be)ore us concerns receivables o) the #rivate res#ondent arisin out o) a le itimate business contract to su##ly oods and services in )avor o) LJLC& 7hen a collection suit was )iled a ainst LJLC by its su##lier, 0un Hin Lu!, evidently PC== could not be the #ro#er #arty to de)end a ainst such claim& Hore so, because when PC== had not ta!en over the LJLCGs business o#erations& 7e note that PC== is not an owner but a conservator& It can e+ercise only #owers o) administration over #ro#erty se(uestered, )ro:en or #rovisionally ta!en over& Aven resort to the #rovisional remedies should entail the least #ossible inter)erence with business o#erations or activities so that, in the event that the accusation that the business enter#rise is Cill2 ottenC be not #roven, it may be returned to its ri ht)ul owner as )ar as #ossible in the same condition as it was at the time o) se(uestration& *he holdin in Pe7a which con)ers e+clusive .urisdiction on the 1andi anbayan in se(uestration cases cannot also be relied u#on by #etitioner in this case& 7e hold that the Re ional *rial Court has .urisdiction over the com#laint )or #ayment o) money alle edly averred by LJLC to #rivate res#ondent&

7e now move to the ancillary issue o) whether or not the #rovisional remedy o) attachment issued by the trial court in )avor o) the #rivate res#ondent is valid& It bears recallin that when the 1andi anbayan ordered that the writ o) se(uestration be li)ted, PC== )iled a s#ecial civil action )or certiorari to contest that order& *he 1u#reme Court ruled in )avor o) PC== when it ranted the latterGs etition to dec%are the %i+ting o+ the writ o+ se"#estration 20 the Sandigan2a0an n#%% and void. *hird Issue9 $a%idit0 o+ Attach!ent /inally, #etitioner claims that the 7rit o) 'ttachment was im#ro#erly issued a ainst the nets& 7e a ree with the Court o) '##eals that this issue is now moot and academic& 's #reviously discussed, 3=) Lo#rdes was an asset o) the #artnershi# and that it was #laced in the name o) #etitioner, only to assure #ayment o) the debt he and his #artners owed& *he nets and the )loats were s#eci)ically manu)actured and tailor2made accordin to their own desi n, and were bou ht and used in the )ishin venture they a reed u#on& 0ence, the issuance o) the 7rit to assure the #ayment o) the #rice sti#ulated in the invoices is #ro#er& Jesides, by s#eci)ic a reement, ownershi# o) the nets remained with Res#ondent Phili##ine /ishin =ear, until )ull #ayment thereo)& 0ustice 6uena2 1econd 'ivision2 /4!+ 6A,C+R1 1A;I,G1 A,' .R)1. #4!PA,-2 petitioners vs5 #4)R. 43 APP+A*1 and 3AR +A1. 6A,C D .R)1. #4!PA,-2 respondents2 <G5R5 ,o5 775B7=5 ,ovember 792 7999@ In this #etition, the lone issue #resented )or the consideration o) this Court is9 C70A*0AR 4R ?4* PRIN'*A RA1P4?DA?* 70IC0 C4HHA?CAD '? 'RJI*R'*I4? PR4CAADI?= @?DAR *0A '@1PICA1 4/ *0A P0ILIPPI?A CLA'RI?= 04@1A C4RP4R*I4? ,PC0CH'O 1@J1AP@A?*LO /ILA ' 1AP'R'*A C'1A I? C4@R* 4NAR *0A 1'HA 1@J3AC* H'**AR 4/ 'RJI*R'*I4? DA1PI*A *0A PA?DA?CO 4/ *0'* 'RJI*R'*I4?, 1IHPLO *4 4J*'I? *0A PR4NI1I4?'L RAHADO 4/ '**'C0HA?* '='I?1* *0A J'?L, *0A 'DNAR1A P'R*O I? *0A 'RJI*R'*I4? PR4CAADI?=1&C 7e )ind no merit in the #etition& 1ection 6; o) Re#ublic 'ct IBF, otherwise !nown as the 'rbitration Law, allows any #arty to the arbitration #roceedin to #etition the court to ta!e measures to sa)e uard and/or conserve any matter which is the sub.ect o) the dis#ute in arbitration, thus9 1ection 6;& 1ub#oena and sub#oena d#ces tec#!& 2 'rbitrators shall have the #ower to re(uire any #erson to attend a hearin as a witness& *hey shall have the #ower to sub#oena witnesses and documents when the relevancy o) the testimony and the materiality thereo) has been demonstrated to the arbitrators& 'rbitrators may also re(uire the retirement o) any witness durin the testimony o) any other witness& 'll o) the arbitrators a##ointed in any controversy must attend all the hearin s in that matter and hear all the alle ations and #roo)s o) the #arties5 but an award by the ma.ority o) them is valid unless the concurrence o) all o) them is e+#ressly re(uired in the submission or contract to arbitrate& .he arbitrator or arbitrators shall have the ower at any time2 before renderin" the award2 without re$udice to the ri"hts of any arty to etition the court to ta:e

measures to safe"uard andEor conserve any matter which is the sub$ect of the dis ute in arbitration5 ,em#hasis su##liedPetitionerGs e+#osition o) the )ore oin #rovision deserves scant consideration& 1ection 6; sim#ly rants an arbitrator the #ower to issue sub#oena and sub#oena d#ces tec#! at any time be)ore renderin the award& *he e+ercise o) such #ower is without #re.udice to the ri ht o) a #arty to )ile a #etition in court to sa)e uard any matter which is the sub.ect o) the dis#ute in arbitration& In the case at bar, #rivate res#ondent )iled an action )or a sum o) money with #rayer )or a writ o) #reliminary attachment& @ndoubtedly, such action involved the same sub.ect matter as that in arbitration, i&e&, the sum o)P2>,200,000&00 which was alle edly de#rived )rom #rivate res#ondent in what is !nown in ban!in as a C!itin scheme&C 0owever, the civil action was not a sim#le case o) a money claim since #rivate res#ondent has included a #rayer )or a writ o) #reliminary attachment, which is sanctioned by section 6; o) the 'rbitration Law& Petitioner cites the cases o) 'ssociated Jan! vs& Court o) '##eals, Puromines, Inc& vs& Court o) '##eals, and Ledesma vs& Court o) '##eals & *his case involves the a##lication o) the >atar#ngang Pa!2aranga0 Law ,P&D& 6>0I-E in contendin that C,w-hen arbitration is a reen u#on and suit is )iled without arbitration havin been held and terminated, the case that is )iled should be dismissed&C 0owever, the said cases are not in #oint& In Associated Bank, we a))irmed the dismissal o) the third2#arty com#laint )iled by 'ssociated Jan! a ainst Phili##ine Commercial International Jan!, /ar Aast Jan! & *rust Com#any, 1ecurity Jan! and *rust Com#any and Citytrust Jan!in Cor#oration )or lac! o) .urisdiction, it bein shown that the said #arties were bound by the Clearin 0ouse Rules and Re ulations on 'rbitration o) the Phili##ine Clearin 0ouse Cor#oration& In Associated Bank, we declared that9 C+++ +++& @nder the rules and re ulations o) the Phili##ines Clearin 0ouse Cor#oration ,PC0C-, the mere act o) #artici#ation o) the #arties concerned in its o#erations in e))ect amounts to a mani)estation o) a reement by the #arties to abide by its rules and re ulations& As a consequence of such artici ation2 a arty cannot invo:e the $urisdiction of the courts over dis utes and controversies which fall under the P#/# Rules and Re"ulations without first "oin" throu"h the arbitration rocesses laid out by the body&C 'nd thus we concluded9 C#learly therefore2 etitioner Associated 6an:2 by its voluntary artici ation and its consent to the arbitration rules cannot "o directly to the Re"ional .rial #ourt when it finds it convenient to do so & *he .urisdiction o) the PC0C under the rules and re ulations is clear, undeniable and is #articularly a##licable to all the #arties in the third #arty com#laint under their obli ation to )irst see! redress o) their dis#utes and rievances with the PC0C be)ore oin to the trial court&C 1im#ly #ut, #artici#ants in the re ional clearin o#erations o) the Phili##ine Clearin 0ouse Cor#orationcannot by ass the arbitration rocess laid out by the body and see: relief directly from the courts& In the case at bar, undeniably, #rivate res#ondent has initiated arbitration #roceedin s as re(uired by the PC0C rules and re ulations, and #endin arbitration has sou ht relie) )rom the trial court )or measures to sa)e uard and/or conserve the sub.ect o) the dis#ute under arbitration, as sanctioned by section 6; o) the 'rbitration

Law, and otherwise not shown to be contrary to the PC0C rules and re ulations& Li!ewise, in the case o) Puromines, Inc& vs& Court o) '##eals,;9 D220 1CR' 2I6 ,6998-E we have ruled that9 CIn any case, whether the liability o) res#ondent should be based on the sales contract or that o) the bill o) ladin , the #arties are nevertheless obli ated to res#ect the arbitration #rovisions on the sales contract and/or bill o) ladin & Petitioner bein a si natory and #arty to the sales contract cannot esca#e )rom his obli ation under the arbitration clause as stated therein&C In Puromines, we )ound the arbitration clause stated in the sales contract to be valid and a##licable, thus, we ruled that the #arties, bein si natories to the sales contract, are obli ated to res#ect the arbitration #rovisions on the contract and cannot esca#e )rom such obli ation by )ilin an action )or breach o) contract in court without resortin )irst to arbitration, as a reed u#on by the #arties& 't this #oint, we em#hasi:e that arbitration, as an alternative method o) dis#ute resolution, is encoura ed by this Court& 'side )rom unclo in .udicial doc!ets, it also hastens solutions es#ecially o) commercial dis#utes&>0 D'llied Jan!in Cor#oration vs& Court o) '##eals, 29; 1CR' I08, I62 ,699I-E*he Court loo!s with )avor u#on such amicable arran ement and will only inter)ere with reat reluctance to antici#ate or nulli)y the action o) the arbitration& G5R5 ,o5 7AA759 ?ovember 2>, 2009 143IA .4RR+1 ;15 ,I#A,4R 1A.1A.I,2 +!I*I,'AA)1.RIA 1A.1A.I, *his is a #etition )or review on certiorari assailin the Decision dated ?ovember 28, 200; o) the Court o) '##eals ,C'- in C'2=&R& 1P ?o& I8>9>, and its Resolution dated3anuary 6I, 200>, denyin #etitioners% motion )or reconsideration& *he factual and #rocedural antecedents are as )ollows9 *he siblin s 1o)ia *orres ,1o)ia-, /ructosa *orres ,/ructosa-, and Hario *orres ,Hario- each own ad.acent 20,000 s(uare meters trac! o) land situated at Jarrio Lan!aan, DasmariMas, Cavite, covered by *rans)er Certi)icate o) *itle ,*C*- ?os& 2>62FB, 2>62FF, and 2>62F>, res#ectively& 1ometime in 699B, ?icanor 1atsatin ,?icanor- as!ed #etitioners% mother, ' ri#ina 'ledia, i) she wanted to sell their lands& ')ter consultation with her dau hters, dau hter2in2law, and randchildren, ' ri#ina a reed to sell the #ro#erties& Petitioners, thus, authori:ed ?icanor, throu h a 1#ecial Power o) 'ttorney, to ne otiate )or the sale o) the #ro#erties& 1ometime in 6999, ?icanor o))ered to sell the #ro#erties to 1olar Resources, Inc& ,1olar-& 1olar alle edly a reed to #urchase the three #arcels o) land, to ether with the 60,0002s(uare2meter #ro#erty owned by a certain Rustica 'ledia, )or P8>,000,000&00& Petitioners alle ed that ?icanor was su##osed to remit to them the total amount o) P2I,000,000&00 orP9,888,888&00 each to 1o)ia, /ructosa, and the heirs o) Hario& Petitioners claimed that 1olar has already #aid the entire #urchase #rice o) P8>,000,000&00 to ?icanor in *hirty2*wo ,82- #ost2dated chec!s which the latter encashed/de#osited on their res#ective due dates& Petitioners added that they also learned that durin the #eriod )rom 3anuary 2000 to '#ril 2002, ?icanor alle edly ac(uired a house and lot at Nista =rande J/ Resort Nilla e, Las PiMas City and a car, which he re istered in the names o) his unem#loyed children, ?i!!i

?ormel 1atsatin and ?i!!i ?orlin 1atsatin& 0owever, notwithstandin the recei#t o) the entire #ayment )or the sub.ect #ro#erty, ?icanor only remitted the total amount o) P9,000,000&00, leavin an unremitted balance o) P69,000,000&00& Des#ite re#eated verbal and written demands, ?icanor )ailed to remit to them the balance o) P69,000,000&00& Conse(uently, on 4ctober 2>, 2002, #etitioners )iled be)ore the re ional trial court ,R*C- a Com#laint )or sum o) money and dama es, a ainst ?icanor, Armilinda 1atsatin, ?i!!i ?ormel 1atsatin, and ?i!!i ?orlin 1atsatin& *he case was doc!eted as Civil Case ?o& 2F9;202, and ra))led to R*C, Jranch 90, DasmariMas, Cavite& 4n 4ctober 80, 2002, #etitioners )iled an ?.5 Parte Hotion )or the Issuance o) a 7rit o) 'ttachment, alle in amon other thin s9 that res#ondents are about to de#art the Phili##ines5 that they have #ro#erties, real and #ersonal in Hetro Hanila and in the nearby #rovinces5 that the amount due them is P69,000,000&00 above all other claims5 that there is no other su))icient security )or the claim sou ht to be en)orced5 and that they are willin to #ost a bond )i+ed by the court to answer )or all costs which may be ad.ud ed to the res#ondents and all dama es which res#ondents may sustain by reason o) the attachment #rayed )or, i) it shall be )inally ad.ud ed that #etitioners are not entitled thereto& 4n 4ctober 80, 2002, the trial court issued an 4rder directin the #etitioners to #ost a bond in the amount o) PB,000,000&00 be)ore the court issues the writ o) attachment, the dis#ositive #ortion o) which reads as )ollows9 70ARA/4RA, #remises considered, and )indin the #resent com#laint and motion su))icient in )orm and substance, this Court hereby directs the herein #lainti))s to #ost a bond, #ursuant to 1ection 8, Rule >B o) the 699B Rules o) Civil Procedure, in the amount o) 1even Hillion Pesos ,PB,000,000&00-, be)ore the 7rit o) 'ttachment issues& 4n ?ovember 6>, 2002, #etitioners )iled a Hotion )or De#utation o) 1heri)), in)ormin the court that they have already )iled an attachment bond& *hey also #rayed that a sheri)) be de#uti:ed to serve the writ o) attachment that would be issued by the court& In the 4rder dated ?ovember 6>, 2002, the R*C ranted the above motion and de#uti:ed the sheri)), to ether with #olice security assistance, to serve the writ o) attachment& *herea)ter, the R*C issued a 7rit o) 'ttachment dated ?ovember 6>, 2002, directin the sheri)) to attach the estate, real or #ersonal, o) the res#ondents, the decretal #ortion o) which reads9 7A, *0ARA/4RA, command you to attach the estate, real or #ersonal, not e+em#t )rom e+ecution, o) the said de)endants, in your #rovince, to the value o) said demands, and that you sa)ely !ee# the same accordin to the said Rule, unless the de)endants ive security to #ay such .ud ment as may be recovered on the said action, in the manner #rovided by the said Rule, #rovided that your le al )ees and all necessary e+#enses are )ully #aid& Oou shall return this writ with your #roceedin s indorsed hereon within twenty ,20days )rom the date o) recei#t hereo)&

=INA? @?DAR HO 0'?D '?D 1A'L o) this Court, this 6>th day o) ?ovember, 2002, at Imus )or DasmariMas, Cavite, Phili##ines& 4n ?ovember 69, 2002, a co#y o) the writ o) attachment was served u#on the res#ondents& 4n the same date, the sheri)) levied the real and #ersonal #ro#erties o) the res#ondent, includin household a##liances, cars, and a #arcel o) land located at Las PiMas, Hanila& 4n ?ovember 26, 2002, summons, to ether with a co#y o) the com#laint, was served u#on the res#ondents& 4n ?ovember 29, 2002, res#ondents )iled their 'nswer& 4n the same day res#ondents )iled their answer, they also )iled a Hotion to Dischar e 7rit o) 'ttachment anchored on the )ollowin rounds9 the bond was issued be)ore the issuance o) the writ o) attachment5 the writ o) attachment was issued be)ore the summons was received by the res#ondents5 the sheri)) did not serve co#ies o) the a##lication )or attachment, order o) attachment, #lainti))s% a))idavit, and attachment bond, to the res#ondents5 the sheri)) did not submit a sheri))%s return in violation o) the Rules5 and the rounds cited )or the issuance o) the writ are baseless and devoid o) merit& In the alternative, res#ondents o))ered to #ost a counter2bond )or the li)tin o) the writ o) attachment& 4n Harch 66, 2008, a)ter the #arties )iled their res#ective #leadin s, the R*C issued an 4rder denyin the motion, but at the same time, directin the res#ondents to )ile a counter2bond, to wit9 70ARA/4RA, #remises considered, a)ter the #ertinent #leadin s o) the #arties have been ta!en into account, the herein de)endants are hereby directed to )ile a counter2bond e+ecuted to the attachin #arty, in the amount o) 1even Hillion Pesos ,PB,000,000&00-, to secure the #ayment o) any .ud ment that the attachin #arty may recover in the action, with notice on the attachin #arty, whereas, the Hotion to Dischar e 7rit o) 'ttachment is DA?IAD& 14 4RDARAD& *herea)ter, res#ondents )iled a motion )or reconsideration and/or motion )or clari)ication o) the above order& 4n '#ril 8, 2008, the R*C issued another 4rder which reads9 In view o) the @r ent Hotion /or Reconsideration 'nd/4r Hotion /or Clari)ication o) the 4rder o) this Court dated Harch 66, 2008, denyin their Hotion to Dischar e 7rit o) 'ttachment )iled by the de)endants throu h counsel 'tty& /ranco L& Loyola, the Hotion to Dischar e 7rit o) 'ttachment is denied until a)ter the de)endants have #osted the counter2bond in the amount o) 1even Hillion Pesos ,PB,000,000&00-& *he de)endants, once a ain, is directed to )ile their counter2bond o) 1even Hillion Pesos ,PB,000,000&00-, i) it so desires, in order to dischar e the 7rit o) 'ttachment& 14 4RDARAD& 4n December 6>, 2008, res#ondents )iled an @r ent Hotion to Li)t/1et 'side 4rder Dated Harch D66E, 2008, which the R*C denied in an 4rder o) even date, the dis#ositive #ortion o) which reads9 70ARA/4RA, #remises considered, de)endants% @r ent Hotion to Li)t/1et 'side 4rder Dated Harch 28, 2008 ,7ith Hani)estation to

Dissolve 7rit o) 'ttachment- is hereby DA?IAD )or lac! o) Herit& 14 4RDARAD& Res#ondents )iled an @r ent Hotion )or Reconsideration, but it was denied in the 4rder dated Harch 8, 200;& ' rieved, res#ondents )iled be)ore the C' a Petition )or Certiorari, Handamus and Prohibition with Preliminary In.unction and *em#orary Restrainin 4rder under Rule F> o) the Rules o) Court, doc!eted as C'2=&R& 1P ?o& I8>9>, anchored on the )ollowin rounds9 ,6- #ublic res#ondents committed rave abuse o) discretion amountin to lac! o) or in e+cess o) .urisdiction in )ailin to notice that the lower court has no .urisdiction over the #erson and sub.ect matter o) the com#laint when the sub.ect 7rit o) 'ttachment was issued5 ,2- Public res#ondents committed rave abuse o) discretion amountin to lac! o) or in e+cess o) .urisdiction in rantin the issuance o) the 7rit o) 'ttachment des#ite non2com#liance with the )ormal re(uisites )or the issuance o) the bond and the 7rit o) 'ttachment& Res#ondents ar ued that the sub.ect writ was im#ro#er and irre ular havin been issued and en)orced without the lower court ac(uirin .urisdiction over the #ersons o) the res#ondents& *hey maintained that the writ o) attachment was im#lemented without servin u#on them the summons to ether with the com#laint& *hey also ar ued that the bond issued in )avor o) the #etitioners was de)ective, because the bondin com#any )ailed to obtain the #ro#er clearance that it can transact business with the R*C o) DasmariMas, Cavite& *hey added that the various clearances which were issued in )avor o) the bondin com#any were a##licable only in the courts o) the cities o) Pasay, Pasi , Hanila, and Ha!ati, but not in the R*C, Imus,Cavite& 4n ?ovember 28, 2008, the C' rendered the assailed Decision in )avor o) the res#ondents, )indin rave abuse o) discretion amountin to lac! o) or in e+cess o) .urisdiction on the #art o) the R*C in issuin the 4rders dated December 6>, 2008 and Harch 8, 200;& *he decretal #ortion o) the Decision reads9 F/+R+34R+, the instant #etition is hereby GRANTED& 'ccordin ly, the assailed 4rders are hereby nulli)ied and set aside& *he levy on the #ro#erties o) the #etitioners #ursuant to the 7rit o) 'ttachment issued by the lower court is hereby LIFTED& 14 4RDARAD& Petitioners )iled a Hotion )or Reconsideration, but it was denied in the Resolution dated 3anuary 6I, 200>& 0ence, this #etition assi nin the )ollowin errors9 I& *0A 04?4R'JLA C4@R* 4/ 'PPA'L1 ARRAD I? 4RDARI?= *0A LI/*I?= 4/ *0A 7RI* 4/ '**'C0HA?* P@R1@'?* *4 1AC*I4? 68, R@LA >B 4/ *0A RANI1AD R@LA1 4/ CINIL PR4CAD@RA& II& *0A 04?4R'JLA C4@R* 4/ 'PPA'L1 ARRAD I? 04LDI?= *0'* P@JLIC RA1P4?DA?* C4HHI**AD =R'NA 'J@1A 4/ DI1CRA*I4? 'H4@?*I?= *4 L'CL 4/ 4R I? AQCA11 4/ 3@RI1DIC*I4? I? =R'?*I?= *0A 7RI* 4/ '**'C0HA?* DA1PI*A *0A J4?D JAI?= I?1@//ICIA?* '?D 0'NI?= JAA? IHPR4PARLO I11@AD& III&

*0A 04?4R'JLA C4@R* 4/ 'PPA'L1 ARRAD I? ?4* DI1HI11I?= *0A PA*I*I4? JO RA'14? 4/ A1*4PPAL, L'C0A1 '?D PRA1CRIP*I4? '?D I? 04LDI?= *0'* *0A 7RI* 4/ '**'C0HA?* 7'1 IHPR4PARLO '?D IRRA=@L'RLO A?/4RCAD I? NI4L'*I4? 4/ 1AC*I4? >, R@LA >B 4/ *0A RANI1AD R@LA1 4/ C4@R*& IN& *0A 04?4R'JLA C4@R* 4/ 'PPA'L1 ARRAD I? 04LDI?= *0'* *0A PRI?CIPLA 4/ A1*4PPAL 7ILL ?4* LIA '='I?1* RA1P4?DA?*1& Petitioners maintain that in the case at bar, as in the case o) 3C@ Constr#ction Aro# , Inc. v. Co#rt o+ A ea%s, the only way the sub.ect writ o) attachment can be dissolved is by a counter2bond& *hey claim that the res#ondents are not allowed to )ile a motion to dissolve the attachment under 1ection 68, Rule >B o) the Rules o) Court& 4therwise, the hearin on the motion )or the dissolution o) the writ would be tantamount to a trial on the merits, considerin that the writ o) #reliminary attachment was issued u#on a round which is, at the same time, the a##licant%s cause o) action& Petitioners insist that the determination o) the e+istence o) rounds to dischar e a writ o) attachment rests in the sound discretion o) the lower court& *hey ar ue that the Certi)ication issued by the 4))ice o) the 'dministrator and the Certi)ications issued by the cler!s o) court o) the R*Cs o) DasmariMas and Imus, Cavite, would show that the bonds o))ered by 7estern =uaranty Cor#oration, the bondin com#any which issued the bond, may be acce#ted by the R*Cs o) DasmariMas and Imus, Cavite, and that the said bondin com#any has no #endin liability with the overnment& Petitioners contend that res#ondents are barred by esto##el, laches, and #rescri#tion )rom (uestionin the orders o) the R*C issuin the writ o) attachment& *hey also maintain that the issue whether there was im#ro#riety or irre ularity in the issuance o) the orders is moot and academic, considerin that the attachment bond (uestioned by the res#ondent had already e+#ired on ?ovember 6;, 2008 and #etitioners have renewed the attachment bond coverin the #eriod )rom ?ovember 6;, 2008 to ?ovember 6;, 200;, and )urther renewed to cover the #eriod o) ?ovember 6;, 200; to ?ovember 6;, 200>& .he etition is bereft of merit5 ' writ o) #reliminary attachment is de)ined as a #rovisional remedy issued u#on order o) the court where an action is #endin to be levied u#on the #ro#erty or #ro#erties o) the de)endant therein, the same to be held therea)ter by the sheri)) as security )or the satis)action o) whatever .ud ment that mi ht be secured in the said action by the attachin creditor a ainst the de)endant& In the case at bar, the C' correctly )ound that there was rave abuse o) discretion amountin to lac! o) or in e+cess o) .urisdiction on the #art o) the trial court in a##rovin the bond #osted by #etitioners des#ite the )act that not all the re(uisites )or its a##roval were com#lied with& In acce#tin a surety bond, it is necessary that all the re(uisites )or its a##roval are met5 otherwise, the bond should be re.ected& Avery bond should be accom#anied by a clearance )rom the 1u#reme Court showin that the com#any concerned is (uali)ied to transact business which is valid only )or thirty ,80- days )rom the date o) its issuance& 0owever, it is a##arent that the Certi)ication issued by the 4))ice o) the Court 'dministrator ,4C'- at the time the bond was issued would clearly show that the

bonds o))ered by 7estern =uaranty Cor#oration may be acce#ted only in the R*Cs o) the cities o) Ha!ati, Pasay, and Pasi & *here)ore, the surety bond issued by the bondin com#any should not have been acce#ted by the R*C o) DasmariMas, Jranch 90, since the certi)ication secured by the bondin com#any )rom the 4C' at the time o) the issuance o) the bond certi)ied that it may only be acce#ted in the above2mentioned cities& *hus, the trial court acted with rave abuse o) discretion amountin to lac! o) or in e+cess o) .urisdiction when it issued the writ o) attachment )ounded on the said bond& Horeover, in #rovisional remedies, #articularly that o) #reliminary attachment, the distinction between the issuance and the im#lementation o) the writ o) attachment is o) utmost im#ortance to the validity o) the writ& *he distinction is indis#ensably necessary to determine when .urisdiction over the #erson o) the de)endant should be ac(uired in order to validly im#lement the writ o) attachment u#on his #erson& *his Court has lon #ut to rest the issue o) when .urisdiction over the #erson o) the de)endant should be ac(uired in cases where a #arty resorts to #rovisional remedies& ' #arty to a suit may, at any time a)ter )ilin the com#laint, avail o) the #rovisional remedies under the Rules o) Court& 1#eci)ically, Rule >B on #reliminary attachment s#ea!s o) the rant o) the remedy " at the co!!ence!ent o+ the action or at an0 ti!e 2e+ore entr0 o+ B#dg!ent.$ *his #hrase re)ers to the date o) the )ilin o) the com#laint, which is the moment that mar!s "the commencement o) the action&$ *he re)erence #lainly is to a time be)ore summons is served on the de)endant, or even be)ore summons issues& In Davao Light C Power Co., Inc. v. Co#rt o+ A ea%, this Court clari)ied the actual time when .urisdiction should be had9 It oes without sayin that whatever be the acts done by the Court #rior to the ac(uisition o) .urisdiction over the #erson o) de)endant + + + issuance o) summons, order of attachment and writ of attachment + + + thesedo not and cannot bind and a ect t!e de endant unti" and un"ess #urisdiction over !is person is eventua""$ obtained b$ t!e court, either by service on him o) summons or other coercive #rocess or his voluntary submission to the court%s authority& 0ence, when the sheri)) or other #ro#er o))icer commences i! %e!entation o) the writ o) attachment, it is essentia% that he serve on the de+endant not on%0 a co 0 o+ the a %icant9s a++idavit and attach!ent 2ond, and o+ the order o+ attach!ent, as e. %icit%0 re"#ired 20 Section ' o+ R#%e '/, but also the summons addressed to said de)endant as well as a co#y o) the com#laint + + +& ,Am#hasis su##lied&In C#artero v. Co#rt o+ A ea%s, this Court held that the rant o) the #rovisional remedy o) attachment involves three sta es9 )irst, the court issues the order rantin the a##lication5 second, the writ o) attachment issues #ursuant to the order rantin the writ5 and third, the writ is im#lemented& /or the initial two sta es, it is not necessary that .urisdiction over the #erson o) the de)endant be )irst obtained& 0owever, once the im#lementation o) the writ commences, the court must have ac(uired .urisdiction over the de)endant, )or without such .urisdiction, the court has no #ower and authority to act in any manner a ainst the de)endant& 'ny order issuin )rom the Court will not bind the de)endant&

*hus, it is indis#ensable not only )or the ac(uisition o) .urisdiction over the #erson o) the de)endant, but also u#on consideration o) )airness, to a##rise the de)endant o) the com#laint a ainst him and the issuance o) a writ o) #reliminary attachment and the rounds there)or that #rior or contem#oraneously to the servin o) the writ o) attachment, service o) summons, to ether with a co#y o) the com#laint, the a##lication )or attachment, the a##licant%s a))idavit and bond, and the order must be served u#on him& In the instant case, assumin arg#endo that the trial court validly issued the writ o) attachment on ?ovember 6>, 2002, which was im#lemented on ?ovember 69, 2002, it is to be noted that the summons, to ether with a co#y o) the com#laint, was served only on ?ovember 26, 2002& 't the time the trial court issued the writ o) attachment on ?ovember 6>, 2002, it can validly to do so since the motion )or its issuance can be )iled "at the commencement o) the action or at any time be)ore entry o) .ud ment&$ 0owever, at the time the writ was im#lemented, the trial court has not ac(uired .urisdiction over the #ersons o) the res#ondent since no summons was yet served u#on them& *he #ro#er o))icer should have #reviously or simultaneously with the im#lementation o) the writ o) attachment, served a co#y o) the summons u#on the res#ondents in order )or the trial court to have ac(uired .urisdiction u#on them and )or the writ to have bindin e))ect& Conse(uently, even i) the writ o) attachment was validly issued, it was im#ro#erly or irre ularly en)orced and, there)ore, cannot bind and a))ect the res#ondents& Horeover, althou h there is truth in the #etitioners% contention that an attachment may not be dissolved by a showin o) its irre ular or im#ro#er issuance i) it is u#on a round which is at the same time the a##licant%s cause o) action in the main case, since an anomalous situation would result i) the issues o) the main case would be ventilated and resolved in a mere hearin o) a motion& 0owever, the same is not a##licable in the case bar& It is clear )rom the res#ondents% #leadin s that the rounds on which they base the li)tin o) the writ o) attachment are the irre ularities in its issuance and in the service o) the writ5 not #etitioners% cause o) action& /urther, #etitioners% contention that res#ondents are barred by esto##el, laches, and #rescri#tion )rom (uestionin the orders o) the R*C issuin the writ o) attachment and that the issue has become moot and academic by the renewal o) the attachment bond coverin a)ter its e+#iration, is devoid o) merit& 's correctly held by the C'9 *here are two ways o) dischar in the attachment& /irst, to )ile a counter2bond in accordance with 1ection 62 o) Rule >B& 1econd D,E DtEo (uash the attachment on the round that it was irre ularly or im#rovidently issued, as #rovided )or in 1ection 68 o) the same rule& 7hether the attachment was dischar ed by either o) the two ways indicated in the law, the attachment debtor cannot be deemed to have waived any de)ect in the issuance o) the attachment writ by sim#ly availin himsel) o) one way o) dischar in the attachment writ, instead o) the other& *he )ilin o) a counter2bond is merely a s#eedier way o) dischar in the attachment writ instead o) the other way& Horeover, a ain assumin arg#endo that the writ o) attachment was validly issued, althou h the trial court later ac(uired .urisdiction over the

res#ondents by service o) the summons u#on them, such belated service o) summons on res#ondents cannot be deemed to have cured the )atal de)ect in the en)orcement o) the writ& *he trial court cannot en)orce such a coercive #rocess on res#ondents without )irst obtainin .urisdiction over their #erson& *he #reliminary writ o) attachment must be served a)ter or simultaneous with the service o) summons on the de)endant whether by #ersonal service, substituted service or by #ublication as warranted by the circumstances o) the case& *he subse(uent service o) summons does not con)er a retroactive ac(uisition o) .urisdiction over her #erson because the law does not allow )or retroactivity o) a belated service& F/+R+34R+, #remises considered, the #etition is '+,I+'& *he Decision and Resolution o) the Court o) '##eals dated ?ovember 28, 200; and 3anuary 6I, 200>, res#ectively, in C'2=&R& 1P ?o& I8>9> are A33IR!+'& 14 4R'+R+'5

#reserve his ri hts or interests and )or no other #ur#ose durin the #endency o) the #rinci#al action& Courts should not .ust summarily issue an order o) denial without an ade(uate hearin and .udicious evaluation o) the merits o) the a##lication as the same would be a denial o) #rocedural due #rocess and could result in irre#arable #re.udice to a #arty& %ec. &. Grounds or issuance o pre"iminar$ in#unction . 6acolod !urcia !illin" v5 #a itol 77 1#RA /or the writ o) #reliminary in.unction to issue, there must be a showin based on )acts that the #arty availin o) the remedy is entitled to the relie) demanded& 'n in.unction will not issue to #rotect a ri ht not in esse and which may never arise or to restrain an act, which does not ive rise to a cause o) action *he )unction o) an in.unction is the maintenance o) the status (uo as o) the time o) its issuance& In the case at bar, the ri ht o) the Central in usin the railway has already e+#ired9 there bein no ri ht to be #rotected anymore, the writ o) #reliminary in.unction cannot be had& !erville Par: /omeowners Association Inc5 v5 ;eleG 79A 1#RA 7here the villa e association see!s to ta!e #ossession and control o) the waterwor!s system )rom the 1alandanan who )ailed to underta!e certain contractual obli ations necessary to assure the homeowners o) a steady water su##ly, a writ o) #reliminary mandatory in.unction will not be ranted absent a showin that the severe water shorta e had not been remedied and that a clear and #resent dan er o) the same or similar de)ault on 1alandanan%s #art, threatenin the same severe conse(uences )or the subdivision residents& ' #reliminary mandatory in.unction is not a #ro#er remedy to ta!e #ro#erty out o) the #ossession and control o) one #arty and to deliver the same to the other #arty where #ossession o) such #ro#erty is bein dis#uted& It may issue #endente lite only in cases o) e+treme ur ency, where the ri ht to the #ossession, durin the #endency o) the main case, o) the #ro#erty involved is very clear5 where the considerations o) relative inconvenience bear stron ly in )avor o) the com#lainant see!in the #ossession o) #endente lite5 where there was will)ul and unlaw)ul invasion o) #lainti))%s ri hts, over his #rotest and remonstrance the in.ury bein a continuin one5 where the e))ect o) the #reliminary mandatory in.unction is to re2 establish and maintain a #re2e+istin and continuin relationshi# between the #arties, recently and arbitrarily interru#ted by the de)endant, rather than to establish a new relationshi# durin the #endency o) the #rinci#al case& It is )or the #arty re(uestin the writ to demonstrate clearly the #resence o) one or more o) the above rounds& %ec. '. Pre"iminar$ in#unction not (ranted )it!out notice* e+ception. 1 0owever, i) issued by the Court o) '##eals or a member thereo), the tem#orary restrainin order shall be e))ective )or si+ty ,F0- days )rom service on the #arty or #erson sou ht to be en.oined& ' restrainin order issued by the 1u#reme Court or a member thereo) shall be e))ective until )urther orders& *em#orary restrainin order, when issued 6& 7hen reat or irre#arable in.ury would result to the a##licant even be)ore the a##lication is

Preliminary In$unction Rule 5> 1ection 75 *he #rimary #ur#ose o) in.unction is to #reserve the status (uo by restrainin action or inter)erence or by )urnishin #reventive relie)& *he status (uo is the last actual, #eaceable, uncontested status which #recedes the #endin controversy& ' mandatory in.unction is an e+treme remedy and will be ranted only on a showin that ,a- the invasion o) the ri ht is material and substantial, ,b- the ri ht o) the com#lainant is clear and unmista!able, and ,c- there is an ur ent and #aramount necessity )or the writ to #revent serious dama e& 'istinctions between in$unction and rohibition 6& In.unction is enerally directed a ainst a #arty in the action while #rohibition is directed a ainst a court, tribunal or #erson e+ercisin .udicial #owers5 2& In.unction does not involve the .urisdiction o) the court, whereas #rohibition may be on the round that the court a ainst whom the writ is sou ht acted without or in e+cess o) .urisdiction5 8& In.unction may be the main action itsel), or .ust a #rovisional remedy in the main action, whereas #rohibition is always a main action& 0ence, )or tem#orary restraint in a #roceedin )or #rohibition, #reliminary in.unction must be sou ht therein& 6ataclan v5 #ourt of A eals 775 1#RA ' writ o) #reliminary in.unction is #rimarily intended to maintain the status (uo between the #arties e+istin #rior to the )ilin o) the case& 's an ancillary or #reventive remedy, it may only be resorted to by a liti ant to #rotect or

heard on notice5 202day tem#orary restrainin order is issued& 2& I) the matter is o) e+treme ur ency and the a##licant will su))er rave in.ustice and irre#arable in.ury, the court may issue e+ #arte a B22hour tem#orary restrainin order5 can only be issued by the e+ecutive .ud e o) a multi#le2sala court or by the #residin .ud e o) a sin le2sala court& *he .ud e issuin a B22hour *R4 is obli ed to conduct a summary hearin within the e))ectivity o) the B22hour *R4 to determine whether the *R4 shall be e+tended in which case, the same is converted into a 202day *R4& 7ithin the 202day #eriod o) e))ectivity o) the *R4 the court shall determine in a hearin whether or not the #reliminary in.unction is to be ranted& *his 202day #eriod is ine+tendible& *hus, a *R4 may be converted to a #reliminary in.unction, which in turn may be converted into a )inal in.unction& *R4 and #reliminary in.unction are issued to maintain the status (uo ante, that is, #rior to the institution o) the main action& ' )inal in.unction con)irms a #reliminary in.unction and #er#etually en.oins a #arty or #erson )rom doin the act/s com#lained o)& A))ectivity o) *R4s9 *R4 issued by trail court may either be )or B2 hours or 20 days5 i) issued by the C' or a member thereo), it shall be e))ective )or si+ty ,F0- days5 *R4s0 issued by the 1C shall be e))ective until )urther notice& 1ocial 1ecurity #ommission v5 6ayona 5 1#RA Dama es are irre#arable within the meanin o) the rule relative to the issuance o) in.unction when there is no standard by which their amount can be measured with reasonable accuracy& 'n irre#arable in.ury which a court o) e(uity will en.oin includes that de ree o) wron o) a re#eated and continuin !ind which #roduce hurt, inconvenience, or dama e that can be estimated only by con.ecture and not by any accurate standard o) measurement& 'n irre#arable in.ury to authori:e an in.unction consists o) "a serious char e o), or is destructive to, the #ro#erty it a))ects, either #hysically or in the character in which it has been held and en.oined, or when the #ro#erty has some #eculiar (uality or use, so that its #ecuniary value will not )airly recom#ense the owner o) the loss thereo)&$ /or an in.ury to be irre#arable, it does not have to re)er to the amount o) dama es that may be caused but rather to the di))iculty o) measurin the dama es in)licted& I) )ull com#ensation can be obtained by way o) dama es, e(uity will not a##ly the remedy o) in.unction& Gilchrist v5 #uddy =9 Phil 5B= 7here writ o) #reliminary in.unction is im#ro#er 2 '&H& ?o& R*32662229I '&H& ?o& R*32662229I 7ell2settled is the rule that an in.unction cannot be issued to trans)er #ossession or control o) a #ro#erty to another when the le al title is in dis#ute between the #arties and the le al title has not been clearly established& In this case, res#ondent .ud e evidently disre arded this established doctrine a##lied in numerous cases when it ranted the #reliminary in.unction in )avor o) Pa els whose le al title is dis#uted& 7hen the law involved is sim#le and elementary, lac! o) conversance with it constitutes ross i norance o) the law& =ross

i norance o) the law is the disre ard o) basic rules and settled .uris#rudence& Res#ondent .ud e should have been more cautious in issuin writs o) #reliminary in.unctions because as consistently held these writs are stron arms o) e(uity which must be issued with reat deliberation&$ In 3ort#ne Li+e Ins#rance Co., Inc. v. L#c:on, the Court held the .ud e uilty o) ross i norance o) the law when he )ailed to conduct a hearin #rior to issuance o) an in.unction in violation o) the Rules o) Court& It was )urther em#hasi:ed in D#7o v. Ca2redo,Bwhere it was held that the act o) res#ondent in issuin the *R4 to en.oin the Jureau o) Customs and its o))icials )rom detainin the sub.ect shi#ment amounted to ross i norance o) the law& ' .ud e may also be administratively liable i) shown to have been motivated by bad )aith, )raud, dishonesty or corru#tion in i norin , contradictin or )ailin to a##ly settled law and .uris#rudence& In the #resent case, the )ollowin com#ounded circumstances mani)est bad )aith on the #art o) res#ondent .ud e9 ,6- in his Comment with Counter2Char e, res#ondent .ud e states that he decided a)ter the #arties submitted their #osition #a#ers, but his 4rder dated 66 'u ust 2009 indicates that res#ondent s#ouses did not )ile their #osition #a#er and the hearin o) the '))irmative De)ense was still set on 6I 'u ust 20095 ,2- res#ondent .ud e%s 4rder #atently shows )acts not entitlin Pa els to the #reliminary in.unction but res#ondent .ud e still issued it5 and ,8- res#ondent .ud e did not re(uire #etitioner Pa els to #ut u# a bond without su))icient .usti)ication or showin o) e+em#tion& + + +&C In ?ovember 2066, the 1u#reme Court o) the Re#ublic o) the Phili##ines, the hi hest .udicial body o) the land, issued a .em orary Restrainin" 4rder ,*R4- on the travel ban im#osed a ainst )ormer #resident =loria Haca#a al2'rroyo in a vote o) 92;& *he travel ban had been issued by the Jureau o) Immi ration ,J4I- in relation to a case o) electoral sabota e #endin be)ore the Pasay City Re ional *rial Court Jranch 662& 7ithin hours o) the issuance o) the *R4, 'rroyo and her husband attem#ted to e+it the country under the aus#ices o) medical treatment& In )ull view o) the national #ress, the J4I, under instructions )rom the secretary o) .ustice, #revented the )ormer #resident )rom e+itin the country des#ite the *R4& *he main reason )or the e+ecutive disre ard dis#layed towards the in.unction issued by the court stri!es many as a technical one& *he *R4 im#osed a number o) conditions on any travel by 'rroyo and the )ormer )irst entleman R such as #ostin a cash bond o) two million #esos, mandatory re#ortin re(uirements to the Phili##ine embassy or #ost in the country o) destination and the a##ointment o) a le al re#resentative who will receive summons on their behal)& *he secretary o) .ustice ar ued that these conditions had not been com#lied with and, thus, the *R4 was not yet e))ective at the time the 'rroyos attem#ted to leave the country& It is also noteworthy that the issuance o) the 'rroyo *R4 was cited as 'rticle NII o) the articles of im eachment that were filed a"ainst )ormer chie) .ustice Renato C& Corona in December 2066& 0e was ultimately convicted on Hay 29, 2062 by the 1enate o) the Phili##ines in a vote o) 2028& 4ddly, in the )ore oin *R4, the a##ointment o) a le al re#resentative may stri!e many as the easiest #oint o) com#liance 2 all one needs to do is to draw u# a s#ecial ower of attorney authori:in anyone to receive summons& 0owever, accordin to the secretary o) .ustice,

that a##ointment had not ta!en #lace and, thus, the lac! o) com#liance was a valid basis )or re)usin to com#ly with the *R4& 's it turns out, the )ormer #resident had a##ointed her le al counsel, /erdinand *o#acio, as her le al re#resentative R but the C#ower o) attorneyC lac!ed clear and unambi uous terms that authori:ed *o#acio to receive #rocesses and sub#oenas& 'nother case o) de)iance a ainst court in.unctions arose rou hly )our months later in Harch 2062& ' #rivate school in the #rovince o) Cebu, 1t& *heresaGs Colle e, disallowed )ive hi h school students )rom raduation rites a)ter the school )ound #hotos o) the students in bi!inis on social networ!in sites, which the school considered lewd and immoral behavior& Pressed )or time and see!in court assistance, the #arents o) the a))ected students )iled a civil case )or in.unction and dama es with the Re ional *rial Court o) Cebu City Jranch 69& *he court issued a *R4 that e))ectively ordered the school to allow the )ive students to #artici#ate in the raduation rites& 4n Harch 80, 2062, raduation day, the students and their )amilies #roceeded to the school to #artici#ate in their raduation rites R only to be turned away by school authorities in outri ht de)iance o) the court2issued *R4& Le al counsel )or the school ar ued that the *R4 was de)icient )or bein issued without a cash bond, which is su##osed to com#ensate )or any #ossible dama es& 'ccordin to the 699B Rules o) Civil Procedure, s#eci)ically Rule 5>H 7 , a #reliminary in.unction is de)ined as9 'n order ranted at any sta e o) an action or #roceedin #rior to the .ud ment or )inal order, re"#iring a art0 or a co#rt, agenc0 or a erson to re+rain +ro! a artic#%ar act or acts& It may also re(uire the #er)ormance o) a #articular act or acts, in which case it shall be !nown as a #reliminary mandatory in.unction& *his de)inition o) what constitutes a reliminary in$unction )ollows its common law ori ins in @1 state #ractice& It may also be said that the *R4s issued in the cases o) )ormer #resident 'rroyo and 1t& *heresaGs Colle e were both #reliminary, !andator0 in.unctions that e))ectively re(uire a #arty or a ency to re)rain )rom a #articular act or acts R such as #reventin travel o) the )ormer #resident and #reventin students )rom #artici#ation in raduation rites& Rule >I S 8 cites the )ollowin as rounds )or the issuance o) a #reliminary in.unction9 ' #reliminary in.unction may be ranted when it is established9 ,a- *hat the a##licant is entitled to the relie) demanded, and the whole or #art o) such relie) consists in restrainin the commission or continuance o) the act or acts com#lained o), or in re(uirin the #er)ormance o) an act or acts, either )or a limited #eriod or #er#etually5 ,b- *hat the commission, continuance or non2 #er)ormance o) the act or acts com#lained o) durin the liti ation would #robably wor! in.ustice to the a##licant5 or ,c- *hat a #arty, court, a ency or a #erson is doin , threatenin , or is attem#tin to do, or is #rocurin or su))erin to be done, some act or acts #robably in violation o) the ri hts o) the a##licant res#ectin the sub.ect o) the action or #roceedin , and tendin to render the .ud ment ine))ectual& Conversely, Rule >I S F sets the rounds )or ob.ectin to, or challen in the validity o), a #reliminary in.unction9 *he a##lication )or in.unction or restrainin order may be denied, u#on a showin o) its

insu))iciency&Ehe inB#nction or restraining order !a0 a%so 2e denied, or, i+ granted, !a0 2e disso%ved, on other gro#nds # on a++idavits o+ the art0 or erson enBoined, which !a0 2e o osed 20 the a %icant a%so 20 a++idavits. It !a0 +#rther 2e denied, or, i+ granted, !a0 2e disso%ved, i+ it a ears a+ter hearingthat a%tho#gh the a %icant is entit%ed to the inB#nction or restraining order, the iss#ance or contin#ance thereo+, as the case !a0 2e, wo#%d ca#se irre ara2%e da!age to the art0 or erson enBoined whi%e the a %icant can 2e +#%%0 co! ensated +or s#ch da!ages as he !a0 s#++er, and the +or!er +i%es a 2ond in an a!o#nt +i.ed 20 the co#rt conditioned that he wi%% a0 a%% da!ages which the a %icant !a0 s#++er 20 the denia% or the disso%#tion o+ the inB#nction or restraining order. I) it a##ears that the e+tent o) the #reliminary in.unction or restrainin order ranted is too reat, it may be modi)ied& Rule >I S > #rovides that the Ce))ectivityC o) *R4s de#ends on the level o) court issuin the order& /or those issued by the Hunici#al and Re ional *rial Courts, the *R4 shall in no case e+ceed 20 days& /or those issued by the Court o) '##eals or any o) its members, the *R4 shall not e+ceed F0 days, and )or those issued by the 1u#reme Court, the *R4 is valid and in )ull )orce inde)initely until the 1u#reme Court orders otherwise& In the case o) 'rroyo, it was the J4I, the De#artment o) 3ustice ,D43-, and the 4))ice o) the 1olicitor =eneral that )iled a motion )or reconsideration challen in the courtGs *R4& 0owever, the mere )ilin o) such a motion would not, in any way, a))ect the validity o) the *R4& Rule >I S F o) the Rules o) Civil Procedure #rovided that a *R4 already ranted may be dissolved9 6& 4n other rounds, u#on a))idavits o) the #arty or #erson en.oined, which may be o##osed by the a##licant also by a))idavits5 or 2& I) it a##ears a)ter hearin that althou h the a##licant is entitled to the in.unction or restrainin order, the issuance or continuance &&& would cause irre#arable dama e to the #arty or #erson en.oined while the a##licant can be )ully com#ensated )or such dama es as he may su))er, and the )ormer )iles a bond in an amount )i+ed by the court conditioned that he will #ay all dama es which the a##licant may su))er by the denial or the dissolution o) the in.unction or restrainin order& *he ar ument used in the case o) 1t& *heresaGs Colle e may seem to hold little merit S the schoolGs le al counsel alle ed the *R4 as de)icient due to a su##osed error on the #art o) the .ud e to im#ose an amount )or a cash bond& @nder the rules o) court, a bond is im#osed at the discretion o) the issuin .ud e based on le al )actors and the amount o) dama e that may be caused by the in.unction& In the case o) 1t& *heresaGs Colle e, the .ud e )ound no reat #otential )or in.ury or dama e in allowin the )ive students to #artici#ate in the raduation ceremonies& *hat )indin was #recisely the reason that no cash bond was im#osed& *he authors o) this #iece, leavin #olitical o#inion and #artisanshi# aside, are o) the view that these two cases illustrate an alarmin trend towards disre ardin .udicial in.unctive #owers that is troublin )or Phili##ine #ractitioners and academics ali!e& In the Corona im#eachment trial, senator2.urors sub.ected the secretary o) .ustice to intensive (uestionin about the #ro#riety and timin o) her choice to disre ard the *R4& Jut the issues in the case o) 1t& *heresaGs Colle e are less debatable&

0ere, one could say that the schoolGs disre ard o) the *R4s was a blatant one that amounts to a clear deviation )rom established #rocedure& *he #rinci#le that *R4s are immediately e+ecutory u#on their issuance is well2settled and a subse(uent motion cannot hinder their immediate im#lementation& *o allow such actions to continue without #ro#er sanctions would create bad #recedent and ive the #ublic the im#ression that law)ul court orders #rocesses can sim#ly be i nored u#on oneGs own determination& ?dse% E# a: is a rivate rosec#tor o+ the Fo#se rosec#tion ane% in the i! each!ent tria% o+ Phi%i ine Chie+ <#stice Renato Corona. Fe is a grad#ate o+ Farvard Law Schoo% and Ateneo Law Schoo%. E# a: is a #2%ic interest %aw0er and %aw ro+essor whose e. ertise %ies in co! arative constit#tiona% %aw and o%ic0, teaching at %aw schoo%s in the GS and the Phi%i ines. Ira Pa#%o Po:on is head o+ the $ice Presidentia% S ecia% Concerns Gnit o+ the vice resident o+ the Phi%i ines. Fe a%so serves as %ega% co#nse% and internationa% re%ations o++icer to the vice resident. Fe ac"#ired his H)A +ro! the De La Sa%%e Gniversit0 and his %aw degree +ro! 3ar ?astern Gniversit0. Fis interests %ie in cor orate %aw, 2an*ing, trade and invest!ent %aw, and internationa% re%ations. Fe c#rrent%0 teaches at the Co%%ege o+ Law o+ the Gniversit0 o+ the Cit0 o+ Hani%a.

become )ait accom#li, only the #rayer )or #rovisional remedy should be denied& 0owever, the trial court should still #roceed with the determination o) the #rinci#al action so that an ad.udication o) the ri hts o) the #arties can be had&C In in.unctive matters, even the cases cited by #etitioners reco ni:e the #rinci#le allowin lower courts .udicial discretion, the e+ercise o) which should not be inter)ered with e+ce#t where there is mani)est abuse& *here is no reason to disturb such e+ercise here& 0ustice !endoGa2 1econd 'ivision2 PR41P+RI.#R+'I. R+14)R#+12 I,#52 Petitioner vs. , #4)R. 43 APP+A*1 A,' !+.R4P4*I.A, 3A6RI#12 I,#52 Respondents, G5 R5 ,o5 77B77?2 0anuary 752 7999 =rounds )or the issuance o) the writ o) #reliminary mandatory in.unction assi nment o) errors raises a sin le (uestion9 whether, in issuin a writ o) #reliminary mandatory in.unction orderin #rivate res#ondent to allow #etitioner to underta!e e+cavations alon the access road )or the #ur#ose o) installin water #i#es, the Re ional *rial Court ravely abused its discretion& 's held in Pele.o v& Court o) '##eals, to .usti)y the issuance o) the writ o) #reliminary mandatory in.unction the )ollowin must be shown9 ,6- that the com#lainant has a clear le al ri ht5 ,2- that his ri ht has been violated and the invasion is material and substantial5 and ,8- that there is an ur ent and #ermanent necessity )or the writ to #revent serious dama e& *he ri ht o) the com#lainant must be clear and unmista!able because, unli!e an ordinary #reliminary in.unction, the writ o) #reliminary mandatory in.unction re(uires the #er)ormance o) a #articular act or acts and thus tends to do more than maintain the status (uo& In the case at bar, #etitioner anchors its alle ed ri ht to the #reliminary mandatory in.unction on the Hemorandum o) @nderta!in , dated 1e#tember 6I, 69IB, which #rovides that9 ,*-he above2described lot, bein an e+istin #rivate road, will remain o#en to in ress and e ress )or whatever !ind o) #assa e in )avor o) PR41PARI*O /I?'?CI'L RA14@RCA1, I?C& or its successors2in2interest& *here is no (uestion as to the meanin o) the terms Cin ressC and Ce ress&C *hey ive #etitioner the ri ht to use the #rivate road as a means o) entry into and e+it )rom its #ro#erty on the northwestern side o) the com#ound& *he (uestion concerns the meanin o) the #hrase C)or whatever !ind o) #assa e&C *he trial court read this #hrase to mean that #etitioner had the ri ht to ma!e e+cavations on the side o) the access road in order to install a networ! o) water #i#es& *he word C#assa eC does not, however, Cclearly and unmista!ablyC convey a meanin that includes a ri ht to install water #i#es on the access road& *he ordinary meanin o) the word, as de)ined in 7ebster%s Dictionary, is that it is Cthe act or action o) #assin 9 movement or trans)erence )rom one #lace or #oint to another&C Its le al meanin is not di))erent& It means, accordin to Jlac!%s Law Dictionary, the Cact o) #assin 5 transit5 transition&C *o achieve a meanin such as that which #etitioner #ro#oses re(uires the consideration o) evidence showin the #arties% intention in usin the word which can only be done durin trial on the merits& @ntil such time, #etitioner cannot claim to have a Cclear and unmista!ableC ri ht .usti)yin the issuance o) a writ o) #reliminary mandatory in.unction in this case& *hus, the

R)*+ 5> ( PR+*I!I,AR- I,0),#.I4, It is settled that these in.unctive relie)s are #reservative remedies )or the #rotection o) substantive ri hts and interests& In.unction is not a cause o) action in itsel) but merely a #rovisional remedy, an ad.unct to a main suit& 7hen the act sou ht to be en.oined haDsE become )ait accom#li, only the #rayer )or #rovisional remedy should be denied& 0owever, the trial court should still #roceed with the determination o) the #rinci#al action so that an ad.udication o) the ri hts o) the #arties can be had&C 0ustice Pan"aniban2 .hird 'ivision2 .icGon2 Plana and Post v5 ;ideo Post !anila2 Inc52 <G5R5 ,o5 78A8B=5 0une 752 =???@ 's earlier adverted to, the issue o) dama es remains unresolved& In Phili##ine ?ational Jan! v& C', we said9 CIn the instant case, aside )rom the #rinci#al action )or dama es, #rivate res#ondent sou ht the issuance o) a tem#orary restrainin order and writ o) #reliminary in.unction to en.oin the )oreclosure sale in order to #revent an alle ed irre#arable in.ury to #rivate res#ondent& It is settled that these in.unctive relie)s are #reservative remedies )or the #rotection o) substantive ri hts and interests& In.unction is not a cause o) action in itsel) but merely a #rovisional remedy, an ad.unct to a main suit& 7hen the act sou ht to be en.oined haDsE

trial court should have observed caution and denied #etitioner%s a##lication )or the #reliminary writ& Petitioner contends that resort should be made to )acts surroundin the e+ecution o) the Hemorandum o) @nderta!in which, accordin to it, shows the intention o) the #arties to ive #etitioner the ri ht to install water #i#es alon the side o) the access road& It cites Rule 680, 1ection66 o) the 69F; Rules o) Court, which #rovides9 1AC&66& Inter#retation accordin to circumstances& 2 /or the #ro#er construction o) an instrument, the circumstances under which it was made, includin the situation o) the sub.ect thereo) and o) the #arties to it, may be shown, so that the .ud e may be #laced in the #osition o) those whose lan ua e he is to inter#ret& *hat is #recisely what we are sayin & *he recourse #etitioner #ro#oses must await the #resentation o) the #arties% evidence durin trial and the determination o) their intention must be made by the trial court, not by this Court& Petitioner cannot circumvent the #rocess by as!in this Court to determine the )acts surroundin the e+ecution o) their a reement& Indeed, )or us to underta!e such in(uiry would be to e+#and the sco#e o) the #resent review and intrude into the domain o) the trial court& Petitioner will have am#le o##ortunity to substantiate its alle ations on this #oint durin the trial o) the case& Rule 680, 1ection 66, which #etitioner invo!es, is actually a rule )or inter#retation o) documentary evidence )ormally o))ered at the trial& It does not a##ly to #reliminary #roceedin s concernin the issuance o) ancillary remedies& 'nent #etitioner%s contention that the writ o) certiorari does not lie because the error sou ht to be corrected is an error o) .ud ment, su))ice it to say that the lower court acted with rave abuse o) discretion in issuin the writ o) #reliminary mandatory in.unction des#ite the doubt on #etitioner%s ri ht to it&

0ustice !endoGa2 1econd 'ivision2 R+P)6*I# 43 ./+ P/I*IPPI,+1 and /4,5 0+R+!IA1 '4*I,42 in his ca acity as Re"ional +%ecutive 'irector2 'e artment of +nvironment and ,atural Resources ('+,R) Re"ion ;II 4ffice2 etitioners2 vs5 /4,5 #4)R. 43 APP+A*12 /4,5 I1AIA1 P5 'I#'I#A,2 in his ca acity as Presidin" 0ud"e2 6ranch 772 R.#2 #ebu #ity2 and +!R4 I,.+R,A.I4,A*2 I,#52res ondents5 <G5R5 ,o5 7=>?7?5 3ebruary =>2 =???@ Preliminary in.unction is a #rovisional remedy intended to #rovide #rotection to #arties )or the #reservation o) their ri hts or interests durin the #endency o) the #rinci#al action& Conversely, i) an action, by its nature, does not re(uire such #rotection or #reservation, the remedy is unavailin and the relie) sou ht cannot be ranted& Preliminary in.unction is a #rovisional remedy intended to #rovide #rotection to #arties )or the #reservation o) their ri hts or interests durin the #endency o) the #rinci#al action& Conversely, i) an action, by its nature, does not re(uire such #rotection or #reservation, the remedy is unavailin and the relie) sou ht cannot be ranted& In this case, AHR4 sou ht the issuance o) a writ o) #reliminary in.unction in connection with a #etition )or declaratory relie) wherein the court is as!ed Cto determine any (uestion o) construction or validity arisin under the instrument or statute and )or a determination o) Dthe

#arty%sE ri hts and duties thereunder&C Indeed, beyond the ad.udication o) le al ri hts which are the sub.ect o) controversy between the #arties, the court cannot issue in such cases an order o) in.unction, e+ecution or similar relie)s, )or the sim#le reason that no ri ht o) #etitioner has yet been violated& Put in another way, a #arty cannot act, and then as! the courts to declare that its action was not a violation o) its a reement with another #erson and, at the same time, see! to en.oin the other #arty )rom revo!in or cancellin their a reement& In this case, AHR4%s doubts and )ears cannot ive rise to a cause o) action to #revent the mere #ossibility that its lease contract with the overnment will be cancelled or revo!ed& Petitioners also (uestion the writ o) #reliminary in.unction on the round that it was issued in violation o) S6 o) P&D& ?o& F0>, which #rovides9 ?o court o) the Phili##ines shall have .urisdiction to issue any restrainin order or #reliminary in.unction in any case involvin or rowin out o) the issuance, a##roval or disa##roval, revocation or sus#ension o) or any action whatsoever by the #ro#er administrative o))icial or body on concessions, licenses, #ermits, #atents, or #ublic rants o) any !ind in connection with the dis#osition, e+#loitation, utili:ation, e+#loration and/or develo#ment o) the natural resources o) the Phili##ines& *he trial court re.ected #etitioners% contention on the round that the issue Cis not the le ality o) the e+ecution o) the /oreshore Lease Contract but rather the #ro#riety and le ality o) the D overnment%sE threatened act o) in)rin in or nulli)yin the ri hts o) DAHR4E under the contract by way o) causin its cancellation or revocation on account o) alle ed violation o) the terms thereo)& & & &C *he court cited the rulin in Datiles and Com#any v& 1ucaldito, where it was stated9 D*heE #rohibition dictated by PD ?o& F0> & & & #ertains to the issuance by courts o) in.unctions or restrainin orders a ainst administrative acts on controversies which involve )acts or e+ercise o) discretion in technical cases, because to allow courts to .ud e these matters could disturb the smooth )unctionin o) the administrative machinery& Jut on issues de)initely outside o) this dimension and involvin (uestions o) law, courts are not #revented by PD ?o& F0> )rom e+ercisin their #ower to restrain or #rohibit administrative acts& 't this sta e, there is really no need to determine whether S6 o) P&D& ?o& F0> a##lies& *his #rovision covers situations where a de)inite act has been underta!en or is bein #er)ormed by administrative o))icials& 's already stated, the issuance o) an in.unctive order in this case is #remature& 0ustice Purisima2 .hird 'ivision2 A11+. PRI;A.IIA.I4, .R)1.2 etitioner2 vs5 #4)R. 43 APP+A*12 /4,5 0+1)1 35 G)+RR+R42 0ud"e of the Re"ional .rial #ourt of !a:ati2 6ranch 7B>2 1.A5 I,+1 !+*A*+ 34R+1. PR4')#.1 #4RP4RA.I4,2 R4'4*34 !5 #)+,#A and !A,)+* I5 .I,I42 res ondents5<G5R5 ,o5 >7?=B5 3ebruary 82 =???@ 202day li)etime o) a restrainin order is non2e+tendible& *he court is without discretion to e+tend such #eriod considerin the mandatory tenor o) the Rule&

7ith res#ect to the validity o) the restrainin order issued on 3une 6;, 69I> and the trial court%s directive en.oinin the #arties to maintain the status (uo ante litem, #etitioner contends that these are contrary to P&D& 8I>
D*his decree re(uires overnment )inancial institutions to )oreclose mandatorily all loans with arreara es, includin interest and char es, amountin to at least twenty #ercent ,20T- o) the total outstandin obli ation& 1ec& 2 thereo) #rovides that C,n-o restrainin order, tem#orary or #ermanent in.unction shall be issued by the court a ainst any overnment )inancial institution in any action ta!en by such institution in com#liance with the mandatory )oreclosure #rovided in 1ection 6 hereo), whether such restrainin order, tem#orary or #ermanent in.unction is sou ht by the borrower,s- or any third #arty or #arties, e+ce#t a)ter due hearin in which it is established by the borrower and admitted by the overnment )inancial institution concerned that twenty #ercent ,20T- o) the outstandin arreara es has been #aid a)ter the )ilin o) )oreclosure

e+tend such #eriod considerin the mandatory tenor o) the Rule& 0ustice Pardo2 3irst 'ivision2 P/I*IPPI,+ #4!!+R#IA* I,.+R,A.I4,A* 6A,C2 petitioner, vs5 /4,5 #4)R. 43 APP+A*12 0)'G+ ,I#A1I4 45 '+ *41 R+-+12 Presidin" 0ud"e2 Re"ional .rial #ourt2 'avao #ity2 6ranch 772 !ARIA *+.6++ A,G2 6*A,J)I.A A,G2 *+.I#IA *5 A,G /+R,A,'+I2 0+1)1 *5 A,G2 0R52 *4R+.A *5 A,G2 64,I3A#I4 *5 A,G2 *4R+,A *5 A,G2 *A,I *5 A,G2 0+!!)+* *5 A,G and *IIA *5 A,G2 respondents, <G5R5 ,o5 7?87B95 ,ovember 75 2 =???@ *he Rules o) Court do not re(uire that issues be .oined be)ore #reliminary in.unction may issue& Preliminary in.unction may be ranted at any sta e o) an action or #roceedin #rior to the .ud ment or )inal order, orderin a #arty or a court, a ency or a #erson to re)rain )rom a #articular act or acts& /or as lon as the re(uisites )or its issuance are #resent in the case, such issuance is valid& /urthermore, contrary to #etitioner%s contention, the Rules o) Court do not re(uire that issues be .oined be)ore #reliminary in.unction may issue& Preliminary in.unction may be ranted at any sta e o) an action or #roceedin #rior to the .ud ment or )inal order, orderin a #arty or a court, a ency or a #erson to re)rain )rom a #articular act or acts& /or as lon as the re(uisites )or its issuance are #resent in the case, such issuance is valid& +++ Petitioner%s contention that the writ o) in.unction issued by the trial court e))ectively ad.udicated ownershi# o) the mort a ed #ro#erty in )avor o) res#ondent Jlan(uita 'n is mis#laced& It is only u#on e+#iration o) the redem#tion #eriod, without the .ud ment debtor havin made use o) his ri ht o) redem#tion, that ownershi# o) the land sold in a )oreclosure sale becomes consolidated in the #urchaser& *he #robate court issued the writ to en.oin #etitioner and other concerned #arties )rom #er)ormin any act which would directly or indirectly en)orce the e))ects o) the e+tra2 .udicial )oreclosure o) decedent%s #ro#erty caused by #etitioner ban!, in order to #reserve the estate o) the decedent& Consolidation o) title would have the conse(uence o) trans)errin ownershi# since the buyer in a )oreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner o) the #ro#erty #urchased i) it is not redeemed durin the #eriod o) one year a)ter the re istration o) the sale& *here)ore, at the time the writ was issued there was yet no issue re ardin ownershi# because the #eriod )or redem#tion had not la#sed& ?evertheless, the #robate court may #ass u#on and determine the title or ownershi# o) a #ro#erty which may or may not be included in the estate #roceedin s, but such determination is #rovisional in character and is sub.ect to )inal decision in a se#arate action to resolve title& *hus, the alle ations o) Jlan(uita 'n that her si natures on the real estate mort a e documents were )or ed may be ventilated in a se#arate #roceedin , re(uirin the #resentation o) clear and convincin evidence& Petitioner asserts that the writ may not issue because o) the #rior issuance o) a tem#orary restrainin order by the Court o) '##eals& *he Court o) '##eals, however, later on withdrew its tem#orary restrainin order and sustained the in.unction issued by the trial court& *he rant or denial o) an in.unction rests in the sound discretion o) the court& Considerin that there were )actual reasons necessitatin the issuance o) the writ, we )ind that the Court o) '##eals did not err in a))irmin the issuance o) an in.unction&

and 1ec& >, Rule >9 o) the Rules o) Court, as amended by J&P& Jl & 22;, 's amended by J&P& Jl & 22;, 1ec& > o) Rule >I now reads9 C1AC& >& Preliminary in.unction not ranted without notice5 issuance o) restrainin order&2?o #reliminary in.unction shall be ranted without notice to the de)endant& I) it is shall a##ear )rom the )acts shown by a))idavits or by the veri)ied com#laint that reat or irre#arable in.ury would result to the a##licant be)ore the matter can be heard on notice, the .ud e to whom the a##lication )or #reliminary in.unction was made, may issue a restrainin order to be e))ective only )or a #eriod o) twenty days )rom date o) its issuance& 7ithin the said twenty2day #eriod, the .ud e must cause an order to be served on the de)endant, re(uirin him to show cause at a s#eci)ied time and #lace, why the in.unction should not be ranted, and determine within the same #eriod whether or not the #reliminary in.unction shall be ranted, and shall accordin ly issue the corres#ondin order& In the event that the a##lication )or #reliminary in.unction is denied the restrainin order is deemed automatically vacated&E ?othin herein contained shall be construed to im#air, a))ect or modi)y in any way any ri hts ranted by, or rules #ertainin to in.unctions contained in, e+istin a rarian, labor or social le islation&CE as well as this Court%s Circular ?o& 68 dated Hay 6B, 69I;& *his circular en.oins 3ustices o) the then Intermediate '##ellate Court and the .ud es o) lower courts to strictly com#ly with the #rovisions o) P&D& ?o& 8I>, P&D& 6I6I and J&P& Jl & 22;& *hat issue has been mooted by the invalidity o) the order admittin the su##lemental com#laint& C' tem#orary restrainin order is merely an ancillary #rocess to an action owin its e+istence entirely and e+clusively )rom the latter& It cannot survive the main case which it was but an incident&C It should be stressed, moreover, that P&D& 8I> should only be invo!ed a)ter the )actual basis )or its a##lication has been laid throu h the #resentation o) evidence in a trial on the merits& It cannot be a##lied automatically& It is noteworthy, too, that the *R4 was issued on 3une 6;, 69I>, the same day the motion to admit the su##lemental #leadin was )iled, while the directive to maintain the status (uo ante litem was incor#orated in the order o) 'u ust 20, 69I> or more than two ,2- months a)ter the issuance o) the restrainin order& Jy )orce o) law, the *R4 e+#ired on the 20th day a)ter notice o) the 3une 6;, 69I> *R4& It is evident there)ore that res#ondent .ud e acted with rave abuse o) discretion in e+tendin the li)etime o) the restrainin order that had in the meantime e+#ired, by issuin another order in violation o) J&P& Jl & 22;& 's such, the second order o) 'u ust 20, 69I> as )ar as it ordered the return to the status (uo ante litem is concerned, is a C#atent nullityC because the 202day li)etime o) a restrainin order is non2e+tendible& *he court is without discretion to
#roceedin s&CE

#0 'avide2 3irst 'ivision2 AGnar 6rothers Realty #om any v5 #A et al <G5R5 ,o5 7=>7?=5 !arch 72 =???@ *he remedy o) in.unction could no lon er be availed o) where the act to be #revented had lon been consummated& 'dministrative decisions on matters within the e+ecutive .urisdiction can only be set aside on #roo) o) rave abuse o) discretion, )raud or error o) law& 'bsent these bad es o) e+ecutive e+cesses, no in.unction may be ranted& *he remedy o) in.unction could no lon er be availed o) where the act to be #revented had lon been consummated& 'dministrative decisions on matters within the e+ecutive .urisdiction can only be set aside on #roo) o) rave abuse o) discretion, )raud or error o) law& 'bsent these bad es o) e+ecutive e+cesses, no in.unction may be ranted& 's a rule, in.unction is not ranted to ta!e #ro#erty out o) the #ossesssion or control o) one #arty to be #laced into that o) another whose title has not clearly established by law& /or the issuance o) the writ o) #reliminary in.unction to be #ro#er, it must be shown that the invasion o) the ri ht sou ht to be #rotected is material and substantial, that the ri ht o) the com#lainant is clear and unmista!able and that there is an ur ent and #aramount necessity )or the writ to #revent serious dama e& .he remedy o) in.unction could no lon er be availed o) where the act to be #revented had lon been consummated& Court cannot en.oin an a ency )rom #er)ormin an act within its #rero ative, e+ce#t when in the e+ercise o) its authority it ravely abused or e+ceeded its .urisdiction& 'dministrative decisions on matters within the e+ecutive .urisdiction can only be set aside on #roo) o) rave abuse o) discretion, )raud or error o) law& 'bsent these bad es o) e+ecutive e+cesses, no in.unction may be ranted& 0ustice Juisumbin"2 1econd 'ivision2 Iabat v5 #ourt of A eals2 G5R5 ,o5 7==?>92 Au"ust =82 =???5 't any rate, #ursuant to 1ection 26 o) the Revised Rules o) 1ummary Procedure, the decision o) the R*C a))irmin the decision o) the H*CC has become immediately e+ecutory, without #re.udice to the a##eal be)ore the Court o) '##eals& *he said 1ection re#ealed 1ection 60 o) the Rules o) Court allowin durin the #endency o) the a##eal with the Court o) '##eals a stay o) e+ecution o) the R*C .ud ment with res#ect to the restoration o) #ossession where the de)endant ma!es a #eriodic de#osit o) rentals& *hus, immediate e+ecution o) the .ud ment becomes a ministerial duty o) the court& ?o new writ o) e+ecution was, however, issued& ?evertheless, the writ o) demolition therea)ter issued was su))icient to constitute a writ o) e+ecution, as it substantially com#lied with the )orm and contents o) a writ o) e+ecution as #rovided )or under 1ection I o) Rule 89 o) the Rules o) Court& Horeover, #rivate res#ondents were duly noti)ied and heard on the omnibus motion )or the issuance o) the writ o) demolition and were iven )ive days to remove their houses& Invo!in Le as#i v& 'vendaMo, the Court o) '##eals held that there was an e(uitable reason to sus#end the en)orcement o) the writ o) e+ecution and order o) demolition until a)ter the )inal determination o) the civil case )or the nulli)ication o) the A+tra.udicial Partition with Deed o) 'bsolute 1ale&

0ustice Pan"aniban2 .hird 'ivision2 .icGon2 Plana and Post v5 ;ideo Post !anila2 Inc52 <G5R5 ,o5 78A8B=5 0une 752 =???@ In Le as#i, this Court held9 7here the action &&& is one o) ille al detainer &&& and the ri ht o) the #lainti)) to recover the #remises is seriously #laced in issue in a #ro#er .udicial #roceedin , it is more e(uitable and .ust and less #roductive o) con)usion and disturbance o) #hysical #ossession, with all its concomitant inconvenience and e+#ense D)Eor the court in which the issue o) le al #ossession, whether involvin ownershi# or not, is brou ht to restrain, should a #etition )or #reliminary in.unction be )iled with it, the e))ects o) any order or decision in the unlaw)ul detainer case in order to await the )inal .ud ment in the more substantive case involvin le al #ossession or ownershi#& In the instant case, #rivate res#ondents% #etition )or review with #rayer )or the immediate issuance o) a tem#orary restrainin order ,*R4- or #reliminary in.unction was mailed on 2 'u ust 699; but was received by the Court o) '##eals only on 80 'u ust 699;& Heanwhile, on 8 'u ust 699;, the writ o) demolition was im#lemented, resultin in the demolition o) #rivate res#ondents% houses& 0ence, any relevant issue arisin )rom the issuance or en)orcement o) the writ had been rendered moot and academic& In.unction would not lie anymore, as the acts sou ht to have been en.oined had already become a )ait accom#li or an accom#lished or consummated act& ' #reliminary in.unction issued in an action to en)orce a contract, which #rohibits an em#loyee )rom wor!in in a com#etin enter#rise within two years )rom resi nation, has the same li)etime as the #rohibition 22 two years also& *here)ore, u#on the e+#iration o) the said #eriod, a suit (uestionin the validity o) the issuance o) the writ becomes )unctus o)icio and there)ore moot& Courts are called u#on to resolve actual cases and controversies, not to render advisory o#inions& *hey cannot ta!e co ni:ance o) moot and academic (uestions, sub.ect to notable e+ce#tions involvin constitutional issues& 0ustice Juisumbin"2 1econd 'ivision2 1 ouses 4n" v5 #ourt of A eals2 0ud"e 6onifacio2 Provincial 1heriff 6elvis and 'e uty 1heriff 1ta5 Ana and Premiere 'evt 6an:5<G5R5 ,o5 7=7B9B5 0une >2 =???@ 'n in.unction to #rohibit the issuance o) writ o) #ossession is entirely out o) #lace& Prohibition does not lie to en.oin the im#lementation o) a writ o) #ossession& 4nce the writ o) #ossession has been issued, the trial court has no alternative but to en)orce the writ without delay& 'n in.unction to #rohibit the issuance o) writ o) #ossession is entirely out o) #lace& In several cases, the Court has ruled that the issuance o) a writ o) #ossession is a !inisteria% )unction& C*he order )or a writ o) #ossession iss#es as a !atter o+ co#rse u#on the )ilin o) the #ro#er motion and the a##roval o) the corres#ondin bond& *he .ud e issuin the order )ollowin these e+#ress #rovisions o) law cannot be char ed with havin acted without .urisdiction or with rave abuse o) discretion&C *here)ore, the iss#ance o) the writ o) #ossession bein ministerial in character, the i! %e!entation o) such writ by the sheri)) is li!ewise ministerial& Contrary to #etitioners% #rotestations that $e%oso v. Inter!ediate A e%%ate Co#rt, 20> 1CR' 22B ,6992should only a##ly to cases wherein the one2year #eriod )or redem#tion has already la#sed, $e%oso ma!es no such distinction& In said case, the Court merely observed that 2

C7orthy o) note is that #etitioners do not im#u n the validity o) the mort a e at its ince#tion& *heir assault is on it is )ounded on events alle edly trans#irin a)ter its e+ecution& *he tenability o) their challen e to the mort a e may well be determined in the civil action ,?o& 68F>>9instituted by them in the Hanila Re ional *rial Court& Jut clearly, the #endency o) that action does not and cannot bar the issuance o) a writ o) #ossession to the mort a ee who has, in the meantime, e+tra.udicially )oreclosed the mort a ed #ro#erty and ac(uired it as hi hest bidder in the subse(uent #ublic auction sale& *he law is (uite e+#licit on this #oint, and the ri ht o) the mort a ee thereunder un(uestionable& 'nd decisions abound a##lyin the law and declarin it to be the court%s ministerial duty to u#hold the mort a ee%s ri ht to #ossession even durin the redem#tion #eriod&C 's a rule, any (uestion re ardin the validity o) the mort a e or its )oreclosure cannot be a le al round )or re)usin the issuance o) a writ o) #ossession& Re ardless o) whether or not there is a #endin suit )or annulment o) the mort a e or the )oreclosure itsel), the #urchaser is entitled to a writ o) #ossession, without #re.udice o) course to the eventual outcome o) said case& 0ence, an in.unction to #rohibit the issuance o) writ o) #ossession is entirely out o) #lace& /irst& @nder 1ection 2 o) Rule F> o) the Rules o) Court, #rohibition can only be availed o) i) there is no a##eal, or any other #lain, s#eedy, ade(uate remedy in the ordinary course o) law& In this case, a##eal under 1ec& I o) 'ct 868>, as amended by 'ct ;66I, is still available& /urther, #etitioners have a #lain, s#eedy and ade(uate remedy in the ordinary course o) law, which is their se#arate case )or annulment o) the )oreclosure o) mort a e& 1econd& Prohibition does not lie to en.oin the im#lementation o) a writ o) #ossession& 0ustice Juisumbin"2 1econd 'ivision2 'elta ;entures Resources2 Inc5 v5 /on5 #abato +t al52 <G5R5 ,o5 77>=7A5 !arch 92 =???@ In P8) v. Adi%, 66I 1CR' 66F ,69I2-, the Court held that Conce the writ o) #ossession has been issued, the trial court has no alternative but to en)orce the writ without delay&C *he Court )ound it ross error )or the .ud e to have sus#ended the im#lementation o) the writ o) #ossession on a very dubious round as Chumanitarian reason&C Horeover, in denyin #etitionerGs #etition )or in.unction, the court a (uo is merely u#holdin the time2 honored #rinci#le that a Re ional *rial Court, bein a co2 e(ual body o) the ?ational Labor Relations Commission, has no .urisdiction to issue any restrainin order or in.unction to en.oin the e+ecution o) any decision o) the latter& Horeover, in denyin #etitionerGs #etition )or in.unction, the court a (uo is merely u#holdin the time2honored #rinci#le that a Re ional *rial Court, bein a co2e(ual body o) the ?ational Labor Relations Commission, has no .urisdiction to issue any restrainin order or in.unction to en.oin the e+ecution o) any decision o) the latter& 0ustice 6elosillo2 1econd 'ivision2 ;elasco et al52 v5 #A et al <G5R5 ,o5 7=75775 !arch 872 =???@ *his contention has no merit& It is a basic #rocedural #ostulate that a #reliminary in.unction which necessarily includes a tem#orary restrainin order should never be used to trans)er the #ossession or control o) a thin to a #arty who did not have such #ossession or control at the ince#tion o) the case&

*his contention has no merit& It is a basic #rocedural #ostulate that a #reliminary in.unction which necessarily includes a tem#orary restrainin order should never be used to trans)er the #ossession or control o) a thin to a #arty who did not have such #ossession or control at the ince#tion o) the case& *he tem#orary restrainin order issued by this Court on ; 1e#tember 69IB merely restrained res#ondent 1*'& CL'R' and all its a ents and re#resentatives )rom withdrawin and dis#osin o) the #lywood inventory in 1*'& CL'R'%s #lant or warehouse until )urther orders )rom this Court& *he order did not contain any directive whatsoever to any o) the #etitioners to sei:e #ro#erty belon in to 1*'& CL'R' or to !ee# the #ro#erty sei:ed in their #ossession& *he #etitioners, by what they did, too! the law into their own hands without any s#eci)ic order )rom this Court5 hence, the sei:ure made by them on 2F 4ctober 69IB was void and ille al even i) the intention o) #etitioners was to #revent the alle ed violation o) the tem#orary restrainin order& 'ny violation o) the in.unction or tem#orary restrainin order which is in )ull )orce or e))ect constitutes contem#t o) court and is #unishable as such, and the remedy o) the a rieved #arty is to institute contem#t #roceedin s where the court in a##ro#riate cases may #unish the violator )or the #ur#ose o) #reservin and en)orcin the ri hts o) the #ersons )or whose #rotection the in.unction or restrainin order was ranted& Clearly, with the subse(uent li)tin o) the tem#orary restrainin order the sub.ect crates o) #lywood sei:ed by #etitioners devoid o) le al authority were never #laced at any time under custodia le is that would #revent #rivate res#ondents )rom recoverin their #ossession over the same& *he amount o) dama es directed by the trial court to be #aid to #rivate res#ondents by #etitioners arisin )rom the wron )ul ta!in o) the #ro#erty is a )actual matters bindin and conclusive u#on this Court& 0ustice Juisumbin"2 1econd 'ivision2 FI*14, 4,G #/I,G CIA, #/)A,2 petitioner, vs. /4,5 #4)R. 43 APP+A*1 and *4R+,I4 .A,2 respondents5 <G5R5 ,o5 78?8A?5 Au"ust 752 =??7@ *o be entitled to the in.unctive writ, they must show that there e+ists a ri ht to be #rotected which is directly threatened by an act sou ht to be en.oined& *o be entitled to the in.unctive writ, they must show that there e+ists a ri ht to be #rotected which is directly threatened by an act sou ht to be en.oined& /urthermore, there must be a showin that the invasion o) the ri ht is material and substantial and that there is an ur ent and #aramount necessity )or the writ to #revent serious dama e& Com#lainantGs ri ht must be clear and unmista!able& In the absence o) a clear le al ri ht, the issuance o) the writ constitutes rave abuse o) discretion& 7here the com#lainantGs ri ht or title is doubt)ul or dis#uted, in.unction is not #ro#er& *he #ossibility o) irre#arable dama e without #roo) o) an actual e+istin ri ht is not a round )or in.unction& In the instant case, the en)orcement o) the writ o) e+ecution, which would evict them )rom their homes, is mani)estly #re.udicial to #etitionersG interest& 0owever, they #ossess no clear le al ri ht that merits the #rotection o) the courts throu h the writ o) #reliminary in.unction& *heir ri ht to #ossess the #ro#erty in (uestion has been declared in)erior or ine+istent in relation to the #lainti)) in the e.ectment case below a)ter a .ud ment which has become )inal and e+ecutory&

PetitionerG round )or the issuance o) the writ o) #rohibition and/or certiorari be)ore the Court o) '##eals is the #resence o) a su#ervenin event that renders e+ecution un.ust or ine(uitable& 1aid issue remains unresolved in the main case still #endin and does not con)irm the e+istence o) a clear ri ht in )avor o) #etitioners& 't best, they can obtain the sus#ension o) the en)orcement o) the writ o) e+ecution or other similar relie) on e(uitable rounds& 7hen a .ud ment or order becomes )inal and e+ecutory, the trial courtGs ministerial duty is to issue a writ o) e+ecution to en)orce this .ud ment& ' writ o) e+ecution may, however, be re)used on e(uitable rounds such as when there is a chan e in situation o) the #arties that would ma!e e+ecution ine(uitable& Li!ewise, where su#ervenin events occurrin subse(uent to the .ud ment brin about a material chan e in the situation o) the #arties which ma!es the e+ecution ine(uitable or where there is no com#ellin ur ency )or the e+ecution because it is not .usti)ied by the #revailin circumstances, a stay or #reclusion o) e+ecution may be #ro#erly sou ht& *hese are cases o) s#ecial and e+ce#tional nature where e+ecution may be sus#ended in the hi her interest o) .ustice& ;I#.4RIA !+'I,A2 ;IRGI,IA ;I,)-A2 A,1+*!4 -A64. and 1A*;A#I4, !+,'4IA2 Petitioners vs. #I.- 1/+RI332 !A,I*A and 1P4)1+1 0)1.I,4 ;5 0I!+,+I and A)R4RA R)+'A 0I!+,+I2Respondents, G5 R5 ,o5 778=852 0uly =B2 7997 er 0ustice Romero2 1econd 'ivision *he issues )or our determination are9 7as the issuance o) the writ o) #reliminary in.unction #ro#erU 7as there rave abuse o) discretion committed by the Court o) '##eals when it set aside the order o) the trial court, then issued a .ud ment touchin on the meritsU Petitioner avers that the C' erred in issuin a #reliminary in.unction in #rivate res#ondent%s )avor& 0e says, )irstly, that he is more entitled to it& 0e states that as holder o) the Certi)icate o) Co#yri ht Re istration o) the twin2dra on desi n, he has the #rotection o) P&D& ?o& ;9& *he ri hts ranted by this Decree shall, )rom the moment o) creation, subsist with res#ect to any o) the )ollowin classes o) wor!s9 +++ ,o- Prints, #ictorial, illustrations, advertisin co#ies, labels, ta s, and bo+ wra#s& Cha#ter II, 'rticle NI, 1ec& 2I& 'ny #erson in)rin in a co#yri ht shall be liable9 ,a- *o an in.unction restrainin such in)rin ement& 1aid law allows an in.unction in case o) in)rin ement& Petitioner asserts that #rivate res#ondent has no re istered co#yri ht and merely relies on the trademar! o) his #rinci#al abroad, which inso)ar as Phili##ine laws is concerned, cannot #revail over the #etitioner%s co#yri ht& Private res#ondent, )or his #art, avers that #etitioner has no "clear ri ht$ over the use o) the co#yri hted wra##er since the P'=4D' trademar! and label were )irst ado#ted and used and has been duly re istered by Ceroil )ood 1handon not only in China but in nearly 20 countries and re ions worldwide& Petitioner was not the ori inal creator o) the label, but merely co#ied the desi n o) Ceroil )ood 1handon & Private res#ondent #resented co#ies o) the certi)icates o) co#yri ht re istration in the name o) Ceroil )ood 1handon issued by at least twenty countries and re ions worldwide which althou h unauthenticated are, accordin to him, su))icient to #rovide a sam#lin o) the evidence needed in the determination o) the rant o) #reliminary in.unction& Private res#ondent alle es, that the trademar! P'=4D' JR'?D was re istered in China

on 4ctober 86, 69B9 while the trademar! L@?=L47 NARHICALLI 7I*0 *742DR'=4? DANICA was re istered on 'u ust 6>, 69I>& *o resolve this controversy, we have to return to basics& ' #erson to be entitled to a co#yri ht must be the ori inal creator o) the wor!& 0e must have created it by his own s!ill, labor and .ud ment without directly co#yin or evasively imitatin the wor! o) another& *he rant o) #reliminary in.unction in a case rests on the sound discretion o) the court with the caveat that it should be made with e+treme caution& Its rant de#ends chie)ly on the e+tent o) doubt on the validity o) the co#yri ht, e+istence o) in)rin ement, and the dama es sustained by such in)rin ement& In our view, the co#ies o) the certi)icates o) co#yri ht re istered in the name o) Ceroil)ood 1handon su))iciently raise reasonable doubt& 7ith such a doubt, the #reliminary in.unction is unavailin , where the com#lainant%s title was dis#uted, we held that in.unction was not #ro#er& +++ *o be entitled to an in.unctive writ, #etitioner must show, inter a%ia, the e+istence o) a clear and unmista!able ri ht and an ur ent and #aramount necessity )or the writ to #revent serious dama e& /rom the above discussion, we )ind that #etitioner%s ri ht has not been clearly and unmista!ably demonstrated& *hat ri ht is what is in dis#ute and has yet to be determined& In Deve%o ers Aro# o+ Co! anies, Inc. vs. Co#rt o+ A ea%s , 269 1CR' B6>, B222B28 ,6998-, we held that in the absence o) #roo) o) a le al ri ht and the in.ury sustained by the #lainti)), an order o) the trial court rantin the issuance o) an in.unctive writ will be set aside, )or havin been issued with rave abuse o) discretion& Con)ormably, there was no abuse o) discretion by the Court o) '##eals when it issued its own order to restrain the en)orcement o) the #reliminary in.unction issued by the trial court& 0ustice !endoGa2 1econd 'ivision2 4R4 #A! +,.+RPRI1+12 I,#52 petitioner, vs5 #4)R. 43 APP+A*12 former 3ourth 'ivision and A,G+* #/A;+12 I,#52 respondents <G5R5 ,o5 7=>7B85 ,ovember =92 7999@ ' co2lessee or sub2lessee o) the #ro#erty is still bound by the e.ectment suit even i) it was not named a #arty thereto& 0ence an in.unction will not lie& Horeover, #etitioner admits that it has been the actual occu#ant o) the leased #remises since 69I0 and it has authori:ed Constancio Han:ano to #ay the rents )or and in its behal)& In )act, it claims to have been #ayin the rent reli iously, e))ectively im#lyin that it is a co2lessee or sub2 lessee o) the #ro#erty& *hus, it is still bound by the e.ectment suit even i) it was not named a #arty thereto& It is well2settled that a .ud ment in an e.ectment suit is bindin not only u#on the de)endants in the suit but also a ainst those not made #arties thereto, i) they are9 a- tres#assers, s(uatters or a ents o) the de)endant )raudulently Voccu#yin the #ro#erty to )rustrate the .ud ment5 b- uests or other occu#ants o) the #remises with the #ermission o) the de)endant5 c- trans)erees #endente lite5 d- sublessee5 e- co2lessee5 or )- members o) the )amily, relatives and other #rivies o) the de)endant& Conse(uently, the a##ellate court did not act with rave abuse o) discretion in annullin the trial court%s order rantin the writ o) #reliminary in.unction&

*he order rantin a writ o) #reliminary in.unction is an interlocutory order5 as such, it cannot by itsel) be sub.ect o) an a##eal or a #etition )or review on certiorari& *he #ro#er remedy o) a #arty a rieved by such an order is to brin an ordinary a##eal )rom an adverse .ud ment in the main case, citin therein the rounds )or assailin the interlocutory order& 0owever, the #arty concerned may )ile a #etition )or certiorari where the assailed order is #atently erroneous and a##eal would not a))ord ade(uate and e+#editious relie)& In the instant case, the trial court issued as writ o) #reliminary in.unction en.oinin the e+ecution o) the .ud ment in Civil Case ?o& 680;0, in s#ite o) the )act that the ri ht o) #etitioner to occu#y the leased #remises has been declared by )inal .ud ment to be ine+istent& 0avin no clear le al ri ht, #etitioner%s #lea should not have merited the )avorable action o) the trial court& *he order rantin the writ o) #reliminary in.unction was thus clearly erroneous and must be set aside& 's the a##ellate court succintly e+#lained9 7e are mind)ul o) the rulin o) the 1u#reme Court that where the court has .urisdiction over the sub.ect matter, the orders or decisions #ertainin to the cause are orders or decisions within its .urisdiction and however erroneous they may be, they cannot be corrected by certiorari. 0owever, while certiorari is enerally not available to challen e an interlocutory order o) a trial court, the 1u#reme Court allows certiorari as a mode o) redress where the assailed order is #atently erroneous and a##eal would not a))ord ade(uate and e+#editious relie)& Petitioner would be made to su))er unnecessary waste o) time be)ore it could #roceed with the e.ectment o) its lessees and all #ersons, includin #rivate res#ondent 4ro Cam claimin under them i) we o#t to dismiss the #etition and i nore the #atently erroneous rantin o) the writ o) #reliminary in.unciton and unduly im#ose u#on #etitioner the burden o) oin throu h the #roceedin s with res#ondent court which had evidently ta!en a #atently erroneous view a ainst herein #etitioner%s valid stand&

G5R5 ,o5 759=77 'ecember =72 =??B P/I*IPPI,+ 1#/44* 43 6)1I,+11 A'!I,I1.RA.I4, K J)+I4, #I.-2 #etitioner, vs& /4,5 *I.A 15 .4*+,.I,4(G+,I*42 as Presidin" 0ud"e2 Re"ional .rial #ourt of JueGon #ity2 6ranch 972 '+PAR.!+,. 43 P)6*I# F4RC1 A,' /IG/FA-12 *IG/. RAI* .RA,1I. A)./4RI.-2 #I.- +,GI,++R 43 J)+I4, #I.-2 and 6)I*'I,G 433I#IA* 43 J)+I4, #I.-2 res#ondents& Challen ed in this #etition )or review on certiorari under Rule ;> o) the Rules o) Court are the )ollowin issuances o) the Court o) '##eals in #A(G5R5 1P ,o5 5AB8?, to wit9 6& 'ecision dated 0anuary 8?2 =??8, a))irmin an earlier resolution o) the Re ional *rial Court at Pue:on City, Jranch 96, which denied #etitioner%s a##lication

)or a tem#orary restrainin order and writ o) #reliminary in.unction5 and 2& Resolution dated 0uly =2 =??8, denyin #etitioner%s motion )or reconsideration& 4n 'u ust 2B, 6999, in the Re ional *rial Court at Pue:on City, Jranch 96, #etitioner Phili##ine 1chool o) Jusiness 'dministration )iled a com#laint )or re)ormation o) contract with #rayer )or a tem#orary restrainin order and writ o) #reliminary in.unction, a ainst the De#artment o) Public 7or!s and 0i hways ,DP70, )or short-, the Li ht Rail *ransit 'uthority, and the Juildin 4))icial and the City An ineer o) Pue:on City& In its com#laint, #etitioner alle ed, inter a%ia, that on 'u ust 2B, 699B, it entered into a deed o) conditional sale with the Re#ublic o) the Phili##ines, throu h the DP70, whereunder it would convey to DP70 a #arcel o) land with a area o) 6,62I s(uare meters u#on DP70%s #ayment o) the sum o) P60,;FB,I;0&00, at the rate o) P9,200&00 #er s(uare meter, a condition which was duly satis)ied by DP70& In the same com#laint, #etitioner #rinci#ally #rayed )or the re)ormation o) the a)orementioned deed o) conditional sale on account o) an alle ed mutual mista!e committed by the #arties relative to the actual area sub.ect o) the deed& Petitioner claimed that the area it sold to DP70 was erroneously #laced at 6,62I s(uare meters when, in truth and in )act, its intention was to cede only the area o) the land outside its e+istin #erimeter )ence, consistin o) >;8 s(uare meters& Petitioner )urther alle ed that res#ondents, to #ave the way )or the construction o) the Li ht Rail *ransit Line 2 Pro.ect, were #oised to ta!e the land within its #resent #erimeter )ence and demolish its e+istin im#rovements thereon, such as its school boo!store, clinic, canteen, water reservoir, se#tic vault and draina e system, all located within the area mista!enly conveyed by it to the DP70 under the a)orementioned deed o) conditional sale& 's #rovisional remedies, #etitioner im#lored the trial court to issue a tem#orary restrainin order and writ o) #reliminary in.unction en.oinin all the named de)endants Dnow #rivate res#ondentsE )rom #roceedin with the ta!e over o) #ortion o) its #ro#erty mista!enly included in the a)orementioned deed o) conditional sale and the demolition o) its e+istin im#rovements thereon& In a resolution dated 1e#tember B, 6999, the trial court denied #etitioner%s a##lication )or a tem#orary restrainin order and writ o) #reliminary in.unction& 1ays the trial court in the same resolution9 %%% Hovant ar ued that they are not en.oinin the overnment #ro.ect but what they are a ainst is the demolition o) the school buildin as it is without due #rocess& *he Court believes that the overnment in)rastructure cannot be accom#lished without demolishin #lainti))%s structure& *his is a situation wherein the wel)are o) the #lainti)) has to be sacri)iced in )avor o) the wel)are o) the 1tate& /urther, as stated in their #leadin , what is to be demolished is a one2storey buildin used as canteen, boo!store, etc& Plainti)) )ailed to #rove that these services could not be housed in another area o) the #remises& Hovant )ailed to show to the Court that the dama e or in.ury to be su))ered is irre#arable& /urther, whether or not P&D& 6I6I is constitutional cannot be resolved in a summary #roceedin & 1ince no )orum has made the #ronouncement that it is unconstitutional, the #resum#tion that all laws are constitutional holds& *he Court )inds no reasonable round established by the #lainti)) to warrant the rant o) the tem#orary

restrainin order and/or in.unction, #ursuant to 1ection 8, Rule >I, Rules o) Civil Procedure& /urther, the 1u#reme Court has issued an 'dministrative Circular ?o& 0B299 re ardin the utmost caution and #rudence o) all lower court .ud es in issuance o) *R4 and 7rits o) Preliminary In.unction& +++ 7ith its motion )or reconsideration havin been denied by the same court in its subse(uent resolution o) 4ctober 2I, 6999, #etitioner )iled a #etition )or certiorari be)ore the Court o) '##eals, whereat its recourse was doc!eted as #A(G5R5 1P ,o5 5AB8?& In the herein assailed decision dated 3anuary 80, 2008, the Court o) '##eals denied the #etition& In time, #etitioner moved )or a reconsideration, but the motion was similarly denied by the a##ellate court in its resolution o) 3uly 2, 2008& Petitioner is now with us via the instant recourse on the )ollowin assi ned errors9 I *0A 04?4R'JLA C4@R* 4/ 'PPA'L1 C4HHI**AD RANAR1IJLA ARR4R 70A? I* @P0ALD *0A C4@R* A IGJ91 DA?I'L 4/ *0A I11@'?CA 4/ ' *AHP4R'RO RA1*R'I?I?= 4RDAR, 70A? 'LL *0A RAP@I1I*A1 /4R *0A I11@'?CA *0ARA4/ 'RA PRA1A?* I? *0I1 C'1A9 '& *0A C4?1*I*@*I4? =@'R'?*AA1 *0'* ?4 PAR14? C'? JA DAPRINAD 4/ PR4PAR*O 7I*04@* D@A PR4CA11 4/ L'7& J& *0A DAH4LI*I4?, '?D/4R *'LI?= 4/ P1J'%1 PR4PAR*O 0'1 NI4L'*AD P1J'%1 C4?1*I*@*I4?'L RI=0* *4 D@A PR4CA11& C& P1J', ?4* *4 HA?*I4?, I*1 1*@DA?* P4P@L'*I4?, 7ILL 1@//AR =R'NA '?D IRRAP'R'JLA I?3@RO I/ *0A *'LI?= 4/ I*1 PR4PAR*O I1 ?4* A?34I?AD& II *0A 04?4R'JLA C4@R* 4/ 'PPA'L1 C4HHI**AD RANAR1IJLA ARR4R 70A? I* '//IRHAD I8 EJEJ *0A DACI1I4? 4/ *0A C4@R* A IGJ DA?OI?= *0A I11@'?CA 4/ ' *AHP4R'RO RA1*R'I?I?= 4RDAR '?D *0A 7RI* 4/ PRALIHI?'RO I?3@?C*I4?, 4? *0A J'1I1 4/ PRA1IDA?*I'L DACRAA ?4& 6I6I ,CP&D& 6I6I-& P&D& 6I6I I1 ?4* 'PPLIC'JLA, C4?1IDARI?= *0'*9 '& 70'* P1J' 14@=0* *4 A?34I? I1 ?4* ' =4NAR?HA?* I?/R'1*R@C*@RA PR43AC*, J@* *0A DAH4LI*I4? '?D *'LI?= 4/ P1J'%1 PR4PAR*O 7I*04@* D@A PR4CA11 4/ L'7& J& *0A PR40IJI*I4? I? P&D& 6I6I 'PPLIAD 4?LO *4 *R4%1 '?D I?3@?C*I4?1 '='I?1* 'DHI?I1*R'*INA 'C*1 I? C4?*R4NAR1IA1 I?N4LNI?= /'C*1 4R *0A AQARCI1A 4/ DI1CRA*I4? I? *AC0?IC'L C'1A15 I* D4A1 ?4* 'PPLO *4 C'1A1, 1@C0 '1 *0I1 4?A, I?N4LNI?= P@A1*I4?1 4/ L'7& C& *0A PR40IJI*I4? I? P&D& 6I6I D4A1 ?4* 'PPLO I? C'1A1, 1@C0 '1 *0I1 4?A, 70ARA *0ARA I1 CLA'R =R'NA 'J@1A 4/ DI1CRA*I4? 4? *0A P'R* 4/ *0A =4NAR?HA?* '=A?CO 14@=0* *4 JA A?34I?AD& III *0A 1@PRAHA C4@R* 'DHI?I1*R'*INA CIRC@L'R1 IHPLAHA?*I?= P&D& 6I6I D4 ?4* PR40IJI* C4@R*1 4/ L'7 /R4H I11@I?= *R41 '?D I?3@?C*I4?1& 70'* I1 PR40IJI*AD I1 *0A I?DI1CRIHI?'*A I11@'?CA *0ARA4/& I;

ANA? '11@HI?=, ARAG?8DJ, *0'* P&D& 6I6I 'PPLIA1 I? *0I1 C'1A, I* C'??4*, '?D 104@LD ?4*, PRAN'IL '='I?1* *0A C4?1*I*@*I4?'L RI=0* 4/ P1J' ?4* *4 JA DAPRINAD 4/ I*1 PR4PAR*O 7I*04@* D@A PR4CA11 4/ L'7& ; *0A 04?4R'JLA C4@R* 4/ 'PPA'L1 C4HHI**AD RANAR1IJLA ARR4R 70A? I* /'ILAD *4 04LD *0'* *0A C4@R* A IGJ 0'1*ILO PRA2 3@D=AD P1J'%1 'PPLIC'*I4? /4R I?3@?C*I4? 70A? I* R@LAD 4? *0A 1'HA D@RI?= *0A 0A'RI?= 4/ F 1AP*AHJAR 6999, 70A? 70'* 7'1 PA?DI?= *0A? 7'1 4?LO *0A 'PPLIC'*I4? /4R *AHP4R'RO RA1*R'I?I?= 4RDAR& 7e deny& 's we see it, the only issue which commends itsel) )or our resolution is whether or not #etitioner has the ri ht to #rovisionally en.oin the res#ondents )rom usin the dis#uted #ortion o) its #ro#erty& In the main, #etitioner maintains that it only sold >;8 s(uare meters o) land out o) the 6,62I s(uare meters sub.ect o) the deed o) conditional sale& 'ssertin absolute ownershi# over the e+cess area, #etitioner ar ues that res#ondents% ta!in thereo) and the demolition o) its im#rovements thereon without any ne otiated settlement or e+#ro#riation #roceedin s there)or violated its ri ht to due #rocess& *he re(uisites )or #reliminary in.unctive relie) are9 ,athe invasion o) ri ht sou ht to be #rotected is material and substantial5 ,b- the ri ht o) the com#lainant is clear and unmista!able5 and ,c- there is an ur ent and #aramount necessity )or the writ to #revent serious dama e& 0ere, #etitioner )ailed to show a clear and unmista:able ri"ht which need the #rotection o) an in.unctive writ& Its claim o) ownershi# o) the dis#uted area is a #oor ar ument to .usti)y the issuance o) the tem#orary restrainin order or #reliminary in.unction #rayed )or& *o be in with, we cannot i nore the ri!a +acie value o) the deed o) conditional sale e+ecuted by the #arties on 'u ust 2B, 699B, which deed e+#ressly states that #etitioner would lose title over the #ro#erty therein conveyed u#on DP70%s )ull #ayment o) the #urchase #rice a reed u#on& 7e (uote condition ?o& F o) the same deed9 CF& *hat u#on recei#t o) the )ull #ayment there)ore, DP1J'E is law)ully and #er#etually sei:ed o) any and all the ri hts and title over the described #ro#erty and li!ewise DP1J'E hereby warrants and will de)end #eace)ul occu#ation and title over said #arcel o) land o) DDP70E at all times )rom all other claimant, whatsoeverC& *here is no denyin the )act that DP70 had already #aid the #urchase #rice o) the land sub.ect o) the deed o) conditional sale& /or sure, #etitioner even o))ered to re)und the e+cess #ayment o) DP70 by reason o) the alle ed mista!e o) the #arties as to the area conveyed in the same deed& 7ith #etitioner%s recei#t o) the )ull #ayment )rom DP70, the deed o) conditional sale ri#ened into an absolute contract o) sale, which necessarily en.oys the #resum#tion o) validity& 'nd amon the ri hts en.oyed by DP70 isB#s #tendi or the ri ht to use the #ro#erty conveyed to it& *he #resum#tion lasts until and unless the trial court shall have resolved #etitioner%s com#laint in its )avor& Jut there is more which militates a ainst #etitioner%s a##lication )or an in.unctive writ& 7e re)er to Presidential Decree ?o& 6I6I, 1ection 6 o) which e+#licitly #rovides9

C1AC*I4? 6& ?o court in the Phili##ines shall have .urisdiction to issue any restrainin order, #reliminary in.unction, or #reliminary mandatory in.unction in any case, dis#ute, or controversy involvin an in)rastructure #ro.ect, or a minin , )ishery, )orest or other natural resource develo#ment #ro.ect o) the overnment, or any #ublic utility o#erated by the overnment, includin amon others #ublic utilities )or the trans#ort o) the oods or commodities, stevedorin and arrastre contracts, to #rohibit any #erson or #ersons, entity or overnment o))icial )rom #roceedin with, or continuin the e+ecution or im#lementation o) any such #ro.ect, or the o#eration o) such #ublic utility, or #ursuin any law)ul activity necessary )or such e+ecution, im#lementation or o#eration&C In Aarcia vs. )#rgos, this Court has made it clear that the a)ore(uoted #rovision de#rives courts o) .urisdiction to issue in.unctive writ a ainst the im#lementation or e+ecution o) a overnment in)rastructure #ro.ect& @n(uestionably, the construction o) the Li ht Rail *ransit Line 2 Pro.ect is an in)rastructure #ro.ect o) the overnment& 4) course, #etitioner ar ues that it is not see!in to en.oin the #rosecution o) the same #ro.ect& 's correctly held by the trial court, however, said #ro.ect Ccannot be accom#lished without demolishin D#etitioner%sE structureC& F/+R+34R+, the instant #etition is hereby DA?IAD )or lac! o) merit& 14 4R'+R+'5