GR 49510; (January, 1980) (Digest)

G.R. No. L-49510. January 28, 1980.
DAGUPAN ELECTRIC CORPORATION, ISABELITA L. LLAMES, PRIMO C. NARVAEZ and JOSE T. APIGO, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE ERNANI CRUZ PANO, DISTRICT JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, BRANCH XVIII and MC ADORE FINANCE AND INVESTMENT INCORPORATED, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Dagupan Electric Corporation (DECORP), a franchise holder operating in Pangasinan, disconnected the electrical service of private respondent MC Adore Finance and Investment, Inc. (MC Adore) for non-payment of its September and October 1978 bills. After serving a 48-hour notice, DECORP effected the disconnection on November 27, 1978. In response, MC Adore filed a complaint for damages with a prayer for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal, Branch XVIII, presided by respondent Judge Ernani Cruz Paño. On December 6, 1978, the respondent judge issued an ex-parte order granting the writ, commanding DECORP to restore power immediately. When DECORP failed to comply, the judge, on December 8, 1978, issued an order for the arrest and confinement of DECORP’s corporate officers until compliance. DECORP moved for reconsideration, challenging the court’s jurisdiction and alleging grave abuse of discretion, but the motion was denied in an order dated December 19, 1978.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Court of First Instance of Rizal committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction and the subsequent arrest order against DECORP’s officers.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari and prohibition. The Court held that the respondent judge did not act capriciously or whimsically. The issuance of the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction was within the court’s discretionary power to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable injury, considering MC Adore’s hotel operations. The legal logic is that a preliminary mandatory injunction, though extraordinary, may be granted ex parte in extreme cases where a party’s right is clear and the urgency demands immediate action to avoid grave and irreparable damage. The Court found that the respondent judge, by subsequently requiring MC Adore to post a significant bond and deposit substantial sums representing a portion of the unpaid bills, took adequate measures to balance the equities and protect DECORP’s interests pending the resolution of the main case on the correctness of the billings. The arrest order for contempt, issued under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, was a coercive measure to enforce the writ, and its conditional nature (cancellable upon compliance) indicated judicial restraint, not arbitrariness. The Supreme Court directed MC Adore to pay current bills from June 1979 onward, authorizing disconnection for future non-payment, while remanding the determination of the pre-June 1979 arrears to the trial court for proper hearing. Thus, no grave abuse of discretion was found, as the challenged orders were provisional remedies within the court’s jurisdiction to issue pending litigation on the merits.