G.R. No. 147923/G.R. No. 147962/G.R. No. 154035; October 26, 2007
JIMMY T. GO, petitioner, vs. ALBERTO T. LOOYUKO, respondent.

FACTS

These consolidated petitions stem from a business fallout between petitioner Jimmy T. Go and respondent Alberto T. Looyuko. Go was the business manager of the Noah’s Ark Group of Companies, owned by Looyuko. In 1997, their dispute spawned multiple civil and criminal actions. The criminal case, People v. Looyuko for Estafa, alleged Looyuko misappropriated Go’s China Banking Corporation shares entrusted to him for sale. During trial, the prosecution moved to present Alvin Padecio as a witness, which the trial court denied. The prosecution then filed a demurrer to evidence, which was also denied, leading to the continuation of the trial for the defense.
Simultaneously, a civil case for Specific Performance was filed by Go. In that case, the Pasig RTC issued orders for an inventory of the Noah’s Ark Refinery’s assets. Looyuko challenged these orders via a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which granted a writ of preliminary injunction to halt the inventory. Go, in turn, challenged this CA injunction. Furthermore, Go sought the inhibition of the judge in the criminal case and questioned orders related to the formal offer of evidence and the filing of a demurrer.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in issuing a writ of preliminary injunction to stop the implementation of the Pasig RTC’s orders for an inventory of assets in the civil case. Subsidiary issues involve the propriety of the denial of the motion for inhibition in the criminal case and the orders concerning the presentation of evidence and demurrer.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions. On the main issue, the CA correctly issued the injunction. The Pasig RTC’s orders for an inventory were issued in a case for specific performance, which presupposes the existence of a partnership or trust agreement. However, the very existence of such a partnership was a principal factual issue vehemently contested by Looyuko. The Supreme Court held that conducting a pre-trial inventory of all business assets was a drastic remedy that would effectively decide the main case before trial on the merits. It would prejudge the issue of whether a partnership existed and would compel Looyuko to open his proprietary business to inspection without a prior determination of Go’s rights. This constituted grave abuse of discretion, warranting the CA’s corrective intervention via injunction.
Regarding the criminal case incidents, the Court found no merit in Go’s arguments. The trial judge’s denial of the motion for inhibition was proper as the alleged bias was not substantiated. The orders directing the prosecution to make a formal offer of evidence and granting leave to file a demurrer were within the court’s sound discretion to control the proceedings. The prosecution’s own filing of a demurrer to evidence, albeit denied, indicated it had rested its case, justifying the order for the defense to present evidence. All procedural rulings were in accordance with law and did not prejudice Go’s substantive rights.