G.R. No. L-33868 October 18, 1990
NILO LIZARES, NICOLAS LEDESMA, JAIME CLAPAROLS, CARMITA C. BALCELLS, EDUARDO CLAPAROLS, EULALIA C. ROSELLO, ENRIQUE YUSAY, DOMINGO RODRIGUEZ, INC., FIRST FARMERS’ MILLING CO., INC., petitioners, vs. HON. CESAR A. KINTANAR, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, and TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO., INC., respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc. (Central) operated a sugar mill. Petitioners were planters who had executed identical milling contracts with Central, granting it an easement of aqueduct on their lands for fifty years, from the 1920-21 to the 1969-70 crop year, to convey water via concrete canals. Prior to the expiration of this contractual period, Central offered to lease the canal areas, but petitioners refused. Upon the contract’s expiration, Central filed separate complaints against the petitioners, praying for the establishment of a legal easement of aqueduct over the same routes and for the issuance of ex parte writs of preliminary injunction to prevent petitioners from destroying or obstructing the canals during litigation.
The respondent judge granted the ex parte writs of preliminary injunction. Petitioners moved to dissolve these writs, arguing that the contractual easement had expired and that the complaint failed to properly aver the statutory requisites for a compulsory legal easement. The respondent court denied the motion to dissolve, prompting petitioners to file this certiorari petition, alleging grave abuse of discretion in issuing and maintaining the injunctions.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing and refusing to dissolve the ex parte writs of preliminary injunction.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court clarified that a preliminary injunction is a preservative remedy aimed at maintaining the status quo ante litem—the last actual, peaceable, and uncontested state preceding the controversy—to prevent future acts that could render a final judgment ineffectual. The propriety of its issuance hinges on the court’s sound discretion, based on the circumstances at the time of the hearing, not merely at the filing of the complaint.
The Court found the injunctions proper to preserve the status quo. The canals, constructed and used for decades, constituted the existing physical situation. If dissolved, petitioners would likely destroy or obstruct them, as evidenced by their refusal to lease the land. This would render futile any future judgment granting Central a legal easement. The Court distinguished the cited jurisprudence, noting the injunctions were issued not merely on an assumption of a right to a legal easement but precisely to protect the subject matter of the litigation—the canals—during the judicial determination of that very right. The trial court’s orders were affirmed, and the petition was dismissed.