GR 128010; (February, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 128010 February 28, 2000
Republic of the Philippines and Hon. Jeremias Dolino, in his capacity as Regional Executive Director, DENR Region VII Office, petitioners, vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, Hon. Isaias P. Dicdican, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Branch 11, RTC, Cebu City, and Emro International, Inc., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Republic, through the DENR, entered into a Foreshore Lease Contract with private respondent EMRO International, Inc. for a term of 25 years. The contract contained a clause (Paragraph Seventh) prohibiting EMRO from subletting the premises or assigning the lease without the prior written permission of the DENR Regional Executive Director. Subsequently, EMRO entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with Alta Resource Group, Inc., leasing certain marina premises and facilities to Alta for use as a floating hotel/casino. The DENR, through Director Dolino, issued a notice to EMRO demanding an explanation for this alleged violation of the contract’s non-assignment clause and threatening cancellation. EMRO filed a petition for prohibition and injunction with the Regional Trial Court, which issued a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the government from cancelling the lease.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court correctly issued a writ of preliminary injunction to prevent the government from cancelling the Foreshore Lease Contract.
RULING
No, the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction was improper and premature. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and dissolved the injunction. The legal logic rests on the nature of a preliminary injunction and the absence of a clear, actual threat warranting such extraordinary relief. A preliminary injunction is a preservative remedy to prevent threatened or continuous acts that would violate the rights of a party. For it to issue, the invasion of the right must be material and substantial, and the injunction must be reasonably necessary to protect the applicant from grave and irreparable injury.
In this case, the DENR’s notice was merely a demand for EMRO to explain the alleged violation. It was not a final, executory act of cancellation. Under Paragraph Tenth of the contract, the government may elect to rescind the agreement only after providing a 30-day written notice. The initial notice sent was the first step in this process, not the act of cancellation itself. There was no imminent, actual violation of EMRO’s rights at that juncture. The threat of cancellation was merely contingent and anticipatory. The Court held that to grant an injunction at this preliminary administrative stage would be to act on a hypothetical threat, which is not permitted. The issuance was therefore premature, as there was no clear, present, and urgent necessity for judicial intervention to prevent an irreparable injury that was not merely speculative.