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 Republic of the Philippines filed a petition for the probate of the will of the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos and for the issuance of letters of administration, citing the heirs’ neglect to initiate proceedings and the need to protect the government’s interest in estate taxes. The probate court appointed a Special Administrator and asserted its exclusive jurisdiction over the Marcos estate under Rule 73, directing that a copy of its order be furnished to the U.S. District Court of Hawaii. The U.S. court was presiding over a class action (MDL No. 840) for human rights violations against the Marcos estate. Subsequently, the U.S. court issued a Reference Order appointing special masters to take depositions in the Philippines regarding the claimants’ injuries and damages.
The Republic then filed in the probate court a petition for a writ of preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the special masters, arguing the U.S. court’s actions impinged on the probate court’s exclusive jurisdiction and disregarded the Philippine government’s claim as a creditor. The probate court issued a TRO. Based on media reports that the special masters vowed to continue depositions despite the TRO, the Republic also filed an urgent motion to cite them for contempt. The probate court later lifted the TRO and denied both the petition for injunction and the contempt motion. The Republic elevated the case via certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in lifting the TRO and denying the petition for a writ of preliminary injunction and the motion for contempt.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The denial of the preliminary injunction was proper. A preliminary injunction is a preservative remedy, and its issuance rests on the trial court’s sound discretion. The petitioner failed to establish a clear and unmistakable right to its issuance. The Court clarified that the probate court’s exclusive jurisdiction under Rule 73 pertains to the settlement and distribution of the estate within the Philippines. It does not extend to extraterritorial acts by a foreign court, such as the taking of depositions in the Philippines for a case pending abroad. The U.S. court’s Reference Order for depositions was an exercise of its jurisdiction over the human rights case before it, which is a separate action from the local probate proceedings. These are in personam actions that do not directly deal with or adjudicate title to specific assets of the estate within the Philippines. Furthermore, the Philippine government itself, through a 1986 Justice Ministry opinion, had previously expressed support for the human rights victims seeking justice in U.S. courts, indicating the proceedings would not adversely affect foreign relations. Regarding the contempt charge, the Court found no grave abuse in its denial since the sheriff’s return showed the respondents were not properly served with the TRO they allegedly defied. The petition was dismissed.