G.R. No. 67195, 78618, 78619-20 May 29, 1989
HEIRS OF EUGENIA V. ROXAS, INC., et al. vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, et al. (Consolidated Cases)

FACTS

The Heirs of Eugenia V. Roxas, Inc. (HEVR) owns and operates the Hidden Valley Springs Resort. In 1975, an “Agreement” granted Eriberto Roxas (a director and later President of HEVR) and his family the concession to operate the resort’s restaurant. After Eriberto’s death in 1980, his heirs (private respondents) continued the operation through a corporation, Hidden Valley Agri-Business and Restaurant, Inc. (HVABR). HEVR’s Board, facing the resort’s financial distress partly attributed to the concession terms, passed a resolution in 1981 to terminate the agreement and take over the restaurant. HEVR notified private respondents to vacate, prompting the latter to file an injunction suit (Civil Case No. SP-1920) to prevent the termination and resort closure. Concurrently, HVABR petitioned the Ministry of Tourism (MOT) to approve food price increases at the restaurant. HEVR opposed this, asserting HVABR lacked authority as it was not the licensed resort operator. The MOT dismissed HEVR’s opposition and granted HVABR’s petition. HEVR challenged this MOT order in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) via a petition for certiorari and prohibition.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) and the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing orders that effectively allowed private respondents to continue operating the restaurant pending litigation, despite HEVR’s claims of corporate control and the MOT’s alleged lack of jurisdiction over the price increase petition.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the distinction between the main controversy and ancillary provisional remedies. The primary issue—the validity of the 1975 concession agreement and the right to operate the restaurant—is the subject of the pending appeal in Civil Case No. SP-1920 before the IAC. The Court emphasized it was not deciding that merits-based issue. The questioned orders from the IAC and the RTC were merely provisional, aimed at preserving the status quo and preventing irreparable damage during litigation. The IAC’s order maintaining the restaurant’s operation was a valid exercise of its discretion to prevent the resort’s closure, which would harm both parties and the public. Regarding the MOT’s order on price increases, the Court found the RTC correctly declined to issue a preliminary injunction against it. The MOT, under its regulatory powers, had jurisdiction to act on HVABR’s petition. Any error in its decision was an error of judgment, not jurisdiction, correctible by appeal, not certiorari. Since no jurisdictional infirmity or grave abuse equivalent to denial of due process was shown, the lower courts’ interlocutory orders, preserving the parties’ positions until final adjudication, were upheld.