G.R. No. 106982 . March 11, 1993.
Syndicated Media Access Corporation and William M. Esposo, petitioners, vs. Court of Appeals, Board of Administrators of Radio Philippines Network, Inc., Ronaldo V. Puno, Quintin Pastrana, Melvin Mendoza, Benito Padilla, German Gonzales, Sr., and Benito Catindig, respondents.

FACTS

On April 8, 1986, Executive Order No. 11 created the Board of Administrators (BOA) of Radio Philippines Network, Inc. (RPN-9) to manage its affairs under PCGG supervision. On November 7, 1992, petitioner Syndicated Media Access Corporation (SMAC), represented by its President William M. Esposo, entered into a management agreement with the BOA, effective from October 1, 1990, to December 31, 1993. On July 14, 1992, private respondents were appointed as new members of the BOA. On July 21, 1992, petitioners filed a complaint for damages and injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati (Civil Case No. 92-2022), alleging that the new BOA threatened to replace Esposo as President of RPN-9 in violation of the management contract. The Makati RTC issued a temporary restraining order and set a hearing for a preliminary injunction. Meanwhile, on July 29, 1992, the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 102, in Civil Case No. Q-92-12878, enjoined the BOA from enforcing the management agreement with SMAC. Despite this, on August 10, 1992, the Makati RTC issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction prohibiting the BOA from replacing Esposo or interfering with SMAC’s management functions. The BOA elevated this order to the Court of Appeals via certiorari. On September 8, 1992, the Court of Appeals enjoined the enforcement of the Makati RTC’s order, prompting petitioners to file the instant petition.

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioners are entitled to the injunctive relief prayed for.

RULING

No, petitioners are not entitled to injunctive relief. The Supreme Court denied the petition and made permanent the Court of Appeals’ injunction. The requisites for a preliminary injunction are: (1) a material and substantial invasion of a right; (2) a clear and unmistakable right of the complainant; and (3) an urgent and paramount necessity to prevent serious damage. Petitioners failed to show urgent and paramount necessity. Their action was based on newspaper reports that respondent Ronaldo V. Puno would replace Esposo as President of RPN-9. However, the newspaper accounts indicated Puno was merely named Chairman and Acting President of an “RPN-9 Task Force,” a position distinct from the President of RPN-9. Esposo remained President and was never actually replaced. Evidence for injunctive relief must rest on solid grounds, not mere hearsay or unfounded fears. Furthermore, the new guidelines issued by the BOA on July 22, 1992, did not violate the management agreement, as SMAC’s management powers were expressly “subject to the policies, guidelines, rules and regulations now and hereafter promulgated by the Board.” The Court also ordered the consolidation of the two related cases—the Makati case (for damages and injunction) and the Quezon City case (questioning the validity of the management agreement)—for joint trial in Makati to avoid varying conclusions.