G.R. No. 117733 September 5, 1997
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR., Regional Trial Court, Branch 165, Pasig City; ROBERT SWIFT; RODRIGO DOMINGO; and SPECIAL MASTERS or Other Persons Acting in Their Stead, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner, the Republic of the Philippines, filed a petition for the probate of the will and for the issuance of letters of administration for the estate of the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos, docketed as Special Proceedings No. 10279. The petitioner nominated the Commissioner of Internal Revenue as Special Administrator, which the probate court granted. The petitioner then filed an urgent motion for a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction against private respondents Robert Swift, Rodrigo Domingo, and Special Masters appointed by the U.S. District Court of Hawaii. This was to stop them from taking depositions in the Philippines related to a class action (MDL No. 840) for human rights violations against the Marcos estate. The probate court initially issued a temporary restraining order. However, in its assailed Order of 2 November 1994, the probate court, per respondent Judge Villarama, lifted the temporary restraining order and denied the petition for a writ of preliminary injunction and the motion to cite private respondents in contempt of court. The petitioner filed this special civil action for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in lifting the temporary restraining order and denying the petition for a writ of preliminary injunction and the motion for contempt.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the assailed Order. The Court ruled that the respondent Judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. On the denial of the preliminary injunction, the Court held that the petitioner failed to show a clear and positive right that needed protection. The Court noted that the Philippine government itself had previously requested the U.S. Court of Appeals to allow the human rights suits against Marcos to proceed to trial, indicating the claims were not intended to be litigated in the Philippine probate court. The principle of comity also counseled against interference with the proceedings of the foreign court. On the denial of the contempt motion, the Court ruled it was not tainted with grave abuse of discretion as the private respondents were not properly served a copy of the temporary restraining order they allegedly defied.