GR 152238; (January, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 152238 ; January 28, 2005
UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, petitioner, vs. UNITED ALLOY PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, respondent.
FACTS
United Alloy Philippines Corporation (Unialloy) filed a complaint for annulment and/or reformation of contract with a prayer for a preliminary injunction against United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) before the RTC of Cagayan de Oro. The RTC dismissed the complaint on grounds of improper venue and forum shopping, and ordered Unialloy to turn over possession of the subject property to UCPB. The RTC subsequently issued an Order of Execution for the turnover. Unialloy, instead of appealing the dismissal order, filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus before the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging the RTC’s orders.
The CA issued a Resolution granting Unialloy’s prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, enjoining the enforcement of the RTC’s turnover order. UCPB filed the instant petition, arguing that the CA had no jurisdiction to entertain the certiorari petition as it was filed out of time, and that the CA’s resolution granting the injunction was insufficient in form for failing to state findings of fact and conclusions of law.
ISSUE
The issues are: (1) whether the CA properly took cognizance of the Petition for Certiorari; and (2) whether the CA Resolution granting the preliminary mandatory injunction was sufficient in form.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed UCPB’s petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the CA. On the first issue, the Court held that the propriety of a certiorari petition is not strictly dependent on the timeliness of an appeal. The RTC’s dismissal order was a final order, but the subsequent Order of Execution was interlocutory. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to challenge an interlocutory order, such as the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction, or when an appeal is not an adequate remedy. The CA correctly entertained the petition as it raised jurisdictional errors committed by the RTC.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that an order granting a preliminary injunction, being interlocutory, is not required to comply strictly with Section 5, Rule 51 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that decisions state findings of fact and conclusions of law. The requirement for a detailed statement of facts and law applies to decisions or final resolutions that definitively settle the merits of a case. A preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy intended to preserve the status quo pending litigation; its grant is based on a preliminary assessment of the need for urgent relief to prevent irreparable injury. The CA’s resolution, which found the injunction meritorious to prevent the petition from being mooted and to avoid force being used to take over the property without clear adjudication, sufficiently explained the basis for the grant. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the CA’s issuance of the preliminary injunction.