GR 45975; (January, 1980) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-45975 January 22, 1980
FRANK C. RAMOS, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ANDRES REYES, HON. MARIANO SERRANO, HON. VICENTE M. SANTIAGO, JR., and MARIANO GARCIA, respondents.
FACTS
Mariano Garcia filed a civil case for annulment of sale, specific performance, and damages against Frank C. Ramos and Rosario Benito-Gardner concerning two parcels of land in Albay. Garcia alleged he was entrusted with the property by Gardner to find a buyer. However, Gardner sold the land to her nephew, Ramos, who subsequently registered the property and entered possession. The trial court (Judge Perfecto Quicho) initially issued an ex-parte writ of preliminary injunction restraining Ramos from disturbing Garcia’s possession.
Later, presiding Judge Jose C. Razo, after hearing, dissolved the injunction. He noted the writ was issued ex-parte, Ramos was the registered owner, Garcia’s appointment as farm manager did not cover the subject lots, and the sale to Ramos, an American citizen, was valid under the applicable constitutional provision. Garcia’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Garcia then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which gave due course to the petition and issued an ex-parte writ of preliminary injunction, restoring Garcia to possession. Ramos filed the instant petition to annul the appellate court’s writ.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing a writ of preliminary injunction against the trial court’s order dissolving its own preliminary injunction.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court annulled the Court of Appeals’ resolution and writ. The legal logic centers on the nature and control of preliminary injunctions. A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy to be granted only after careful consideration, and the general rule is that both parties should be heard. The Supreme Court has consistently discouraged the ex-parte issuance of injunctions.
The trial court, under Section 7, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, retains full control over an injunction it has issued and may dissolve it as justice requires. Judge Razo’s order dissolving the original ex-parte writ was a proper exercise of this jurisdiction, considering the circumstances: the initial writ was granted ex-parte, Ramos was the registered owner, and the validity of his title was a substantive issue for trial. The Court of Appeals, in issuing its own ex-parte injunction to countermand the trial court’s dissolution order, effectively disturbed the trial court’s legitimate exercise of discretion without a clear showing of grave abuse. The appellate court’s action constituted a grave abuse of discretion, as it improperly interfered with an interlocutory order within the trial court’s control. The Supreme Court made permanent its earlier temporary restraining order against the Court of Appeals’ writ.