GR 42334; (October, 1936) (Digest)
G.R. No. 42334 ; October 31, 1936
NORTH NEGROS SUGAR CO., plaintiff-appellant, vs. SERAFIN HIDALGO, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
North Negros Sugar Co. (plaintiff) owns a sugar central with a “mill site” and an adjoining plantation, Hacienda “Begoña.” It constructed a private road connecting the mill site to a provincial highway, allowing public use upon payment of a toll for vehicles, with free passage for pedestrians. Serafin Hidalgo (defendant) operates a billiard hall and tuba saloon on the adjacent Hacienda “Sañgay,” owned by Luciano Aguirre. The plaintiff prevented Hidalgo from using the road when he transported tuba, causing him to deviate across the plaintiff’s fields. The plaintiff filed for a permanent injunction to restrain Hidalgo from entering or passing through its properties, alleging initially that he caused trouble and disturbances, but these allegations were later removed in an amended complaint. The trial court denied the injunction.
ISSUE
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from passing through its private road.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the injunction, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a clear legal right warranting such extraordinary relief. The plaintiff did not prove that the defendant’s mere passage to convey tuba to an adjacent property caused any damage or injury to its property rights. The Court emphasized that an injunction requires a showing of a pressing necessity to prevent irreparable injury, not merely a trifling discomfort or the enforcement of an abstract right. Since the plaintiff allowed general public use of the road and no nuisance or violation of rights was proven, excluding the defendant alone would be unjust. The remedy of injunction is not available where no substantive right is endangered.
AI Generated by Armztrong.