GR 87913; (May, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 87913 ; May 6, 1991
LEONOR A. OLALIA and her husband JESUS G. OLALIA, petitioners, vs. LOLITA O HIZON, represented by her Atty. In Fact, ATTY. ABRAHAM P. GOROSPE, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Lolita O. Hizon filed a complaint for unfair competition against petitioner Leonor A. Olalia, her sister-in-law. Both parties are engaged in the meat business, selling similar products. Hizon claimed prior use since 1974 of the business name “Pampanga’s Best” and alleged that Olalia’s use of the name “Pampanga’s Pride” impaired her goodwill. The Regional Trial Court, after hearings, granted Hizon’s application for a preliminary injunction, ordering Olalia to desist from using the contested name and related promotional materials pending litigation.
Petitioners directly assailed the RTC order via a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, bypassing a motion for reconsideration. The CA denied the petition, holding that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion, as its findings were based on evidence presented during hearings and constituted, at most, errors of judgment not correctible by certiorari. The CA also noted the procedural lapse of not filing a motion for reconsideration first.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the preliminary injunction was invalidly issued and lifted it. The Court clarified that the sole issue was the propriety of the preliminary injunction, not the merits of the main unfair competition case. A preliminary injunction requires a showing by the applicant of a clear legal right and an urgent necessity to prevent serious, irreparable damage. The Court found that the private respondent failed to sufficiently demonstrate such irreparable injury, especially since her own sales had allegedly increased. The trial court’s order, while referencing conducted hearings, lacked a clear showing that this requisite proof was met.
The Court also addressed procedural matters. It agreed with the CA that petitioners should have first filed a motion for reconsideration before resorting to certiorari, as their claimed fear of the judge’s partiality was an unacceptable excuse. However, the importance of the issues justified resolving the case. Furthermore, the Court reprimanded the trial judge for improperly extending the temporary restraining order beyond the 20-day limit prescribed by law. The case was remanded to the trial court for expedited proceedings on the merits.