G.R. No. L-48603 September 29, 1989
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, petitioner, vs. Hon. ALFREDO C. FLORENDO, Presiding Judge of Branch XXXVI of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and FELIPE T. ANG, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Felipe T. Ang had a substantial indebtedness to petitioner GSIS, secured by real estate mortgages covering properties including the House International Building. After Ang defaulted, GSIS initiated foreclosure proceedings. The properties were sold at public auction to GSIS as the highest bidder in 1974. Following the expiration of the redemption period, titles were registered in GSIS’s name in 1975, and GSIS took possession in January 1976.
In May 1978, Ang filed a complaint against GSIS, alleging an unlawful takeover and appropriation of personal properties not included in the mortgage, such as furniture, jewelry, and air-conditioning units. He sought their return and damages. Respondent Judge Florendo issued a temporary restraining order on June 2, 1978, and subsequently a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction on June 16, 1978, ordering GSIS to desist from using the listed personal properties. Despite GSIS filing an urgent motion for reconsideration, the judge issued another order on June 30, 1978, authorizing sheriffs to use reasonable force to implement the writ, which they did on July 17, 1978.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders for a preliminary mandatory injunction and authorizing the use of force while a motion for reconsideration was pending.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that a preliminary mandatory injunction, which commands the performance of an act, is an extraordinary remedy to be granted only in clear cases free from doubt or dispute. Its issuance requires a showing that the complainant has a clear legal right to the relief demanded and that the act sought to be enjoined is violative of that right.
The Court ruled that the respondent judge’s orders were issued without a proper legal basis. The factual circumstances revealed a dispute over whether the seized personal properties were included in the foreclosure sale or were separate, unencumbered assets of Ang. This very dispute indicated that Ang’s right to the properties was not clear and unquestionable, a prerequisite for the drastic relief of a preliminary mandatory injunction. By granting such relief, the judge prematurely decided a central factual issue that should have been resolved during a full trial on the merits.
Furthermore, the judge gravely abused his discretion by issuing the June 30, 1978 order authorizing the use of force to implement the injunction while GSIS’s motion for reconsideration remained unresolved. This action deprived GSIS of the opportunity for judicial review of the injunction order and effectively executed the writ in a summary manner. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled the orders dated June 16 and 30, 1978, and directed the trial court to proceed with the case with dispatch.