GR 138900; (September, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 138900 September 20, 2005
Levi Strauss & Co., & Levi Strauss (Phils.), Inc., Petitioners, vs. Clinton Apparelle, Inc., Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners Levi Strauss & Co. (LS & Co.) and Levi Strauss (Phils.), Inc. (LSPI) filed a Complaint for Trademark Infringement, Injunction, and Damages against respondent Clinton Apparelle, Inc. and an alternative defendant. They alleged that LS & Co. is the registered owner of the internationally famous “Dockers and Design” trademark in the Philippines and that respondent was manufacturing and selling jeans under the brand “Paddocks” using a device substantially similar to their trademark. Petitioners prayed for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a writ of preliminary injunction. The trial court granted the TRO and later the preliminary injunction, noting the defendants’ failure to appear at scheduled hearings despite notice.
Respondent Clinton Apparelle filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, arguing it was not notified of the hearings for the TRO application. The appellate court granted the petition, set aside the trial court’s orders, and issued a writ of preliminary injunction in favor of respondent, restraining petitioners from enforcing the lower court’s injunction. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion by proceeding with the ex parte hearing and granting the TRO without proof of personal service of notice of the hearing to respondent, as required by the Rules of Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the TRO and preliminary injunction.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the trial court indeed committed grave abuse of discretion. The grant of a TRO and a writ of preliminary injunction is an extraordinary prerogative that must be exercised with extreme caution. The Rules of Court mandate that a summary hearing must be conducted before a TRO may be issued, and notice of this hearing must be personally served to the party or person sought to be enjoined. The purpose is to give the latter an opportunity to be heard and oppose the application.
In this case, the trial court proceeded with an ex parte hearing and granted the TRO based solely on petitioners’ arguments, despite respondent’s claim of lack of notice. The records failed to show conclusive proof that respondent was personally served notice of the summary hearing. The requirement of a hearing is mandatory and indispensable. By proceeding without ensuring respondent was properly notified and heard, the trial court violated respondent’s right to due process. Consequently, the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the trial court’s orders were issued with grave abuse of discretion, warranting their annulment. The Supreme Court emphasized that injunctive reliefs are preservative remedies, and their issuance demands strict compliance with procedural rules to prevent injustice.