G.R. No. 192809 , April 26, 2021
THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, HON. ANGELITO A. ALVAREZ, AS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AND ATTY. ANJU NEREO C. CASTIGADOR, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE OIC-DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS-PORT OF DAVAO, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS-CAGAYAN DE ORO STATION, AND RODOLFO C. RETA, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE ACQUARIUS CONTAINER YARD, RESPONDENTS. [G.R Nos. 193588 and 193590-91] ATTY. ANJU NEREO C. CASTIGADOR, AS OIC-DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS-PORT OF DAVAO, PETITIONER, VS. HON. GEORGE E. OMELIO, AS PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 14, RTC-DAVAO CITY, AND RODOLFO C. RETA, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE ACQUARIUS CONTAINER YARD, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 201650] THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, HON. ROZZANO RUFINO B. BIAZON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AND ATTY. MARTINIANO B. BANGCOY, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS-FORT OF DAVAO, PETITIONERS, VS. RODOLFO C. RETA, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE ACQUARIUS CONTAINER YARD, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Private respondent Rodolfo C. Reta, owner/operator of Acquarius Container Yard (ACY), entered into a 25-year Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Bureau of Customs (BOC) on January 9, 2009, for the free use of ACY as the designated examination area for container vans in the Port of Davao. The MOA allowed revocation for cause. On February 26, 2010, BOC claimed Reta closed the yard and barred examiners; Reta denied this, alleging it was the District Collector, Atty. Anju Nereo C. Castigador, who stopped operations. That same day, Atty. Castigador informed Reta of the intent to conduct examinations at the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) premises and to reexamine the MOA. Reta filed a Complaint with Application for Preliminary Injunction and Prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City. The Executive Judge issued a TRO. After raffle, Presiding Judge Emmanuel C. Carpio extended the TRO but later, on March 19, 2010, denied Reta’s application for a writ of preliminary injunction. Meanwhile, on March 5, 2010, the BOC revoked the MOA, citing strained relations and the availability of space at PPA. Reta moved for Judge Carpio’s inhibition, which was granted. The case was re-raffled to Judge George E. Omelio. Reta moved for reconsideration of the March 19 Order. On April 19, 2010, Judge Omelio issued an Order setting aside the March 19 Order and granting a writ of preliminary injunction, prohibiting the BOC from closing the examination area at ACY and revoking the MOA, and directing the BOC to resume operations at ACY. The BOC filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing the April 19 Order and sought a writ of preliminary injunction. The CA, in a July 22, 2010 Resolution, denied the BOC’s application for injunctive relief. The BOC filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court ( G.R. No. 192809 ) assailing the CA’s July 22 Resolution. The Supreme Court initially dismissed it but later reinstated it and issued a status quo ante order on October 6, 2010, allowing the BOC to conduct examinations at the PPA premises. In related proceedings, the RTC, in a September 16, 2010 Omnibus Order, denied Atty. Castigador’s motion for inhibition, granted Reta’s petitions for indirect contempt against Atty. Castigador, and ordered his arrest for alleged defiance of the April 19 Order (subject of G.R. Nos. 193588 & 193590-91). The CA eventually dismissed the BOC’s main Petition for Certiorari in a January 17, 2012 Decision and April 17, 2012 Resolution (subject of G.R. No. 201650). These petitions were consolidated.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Regional Trial Court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction on April 19, 2010, which enjoined the Bureau of Customs from implementing the closure of the designated examination area at Acquarius Container Yard and the revocation of the Memorandum of Agreement.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction. The Court held that a writ of preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy to preserve the status quo ante litem, and the applicant must establish a clear and unmistakable right to be protected. Reta failed to establish such a clear legal right. The MOA between Reta and the BOC was revocable at any time for cause, and the BOC’s revocation letter of March 5, 2010 effectively terminated the agreement. Therefore, at the time the RTC issued the injunction on April 19, 2010, there was no existing MOA to enforce. The injunction effectively compelled the performance of a terminated contract, which was improper. Furthermore, the Court found that the injunction would disrupt and interfere with the BOC’s statutory mandate and administrative functions regarding the designation of examination areas, which is within its exclusive authority. The RTC’s order to conduct examinations at ACY amounted to a directive on how the BOC should perform its official duties, which is beyond judicial authority through an injunction. The Supreme Court made permanent the status quo ante order it previously issued, thereby allowing the BOC to conduct examinations at the PPA premises. The related petitions (G.R. Nos. 193588, 193590-91, and 201650) were rendered moot and academic by this disposition.