GR L 16886; (April, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-16886 April 30, 1965
ANACLETO TRINIDAD and DIONISIO BARROGA, petitioners, vs. HON. JOSE L. MOYA and MUNICIPALITY OF IRIGA, respondents.
FACTS
On December 11, 1959, the Municipal Mayor of Iriga, Camarines Sur, representing the municipality and pursuant to a municipal council resolution, leased the Iriga Central Market to petitioner Anacleto Trinidad and the Sagrada Public Market to petitioner Dionisio Barroga for one year, beginning January 1, 1960, with options for extension. The Municipal Council approved these lease agreements on December 29, 1959. The lessees paid the first quarter’s rental and took over the operation and administration of the markets, collecting rents and fees. On February 16, 1960, the respondent Municipality of Iriga filed a complaint (Civil Case No. 4836) in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur against the petitioners and the former mayor, Perfecto Tanduran, seeking to annul the lease contracts. The complaint alleged that the leases were executed in collusion and connivance, were patently unreasonable (as the municipality previously earned a higher net income), and were intended to defraud the municipality. The complaint included a prayer for the ex parte issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the petitioners from collecting rents and fees during the pendency of the action. The petitioners filed an answer, asserting the legality of the contracts and claiming the suit was politically motivated. On March 22, 1960, the respondent Judge Jose L. Moya issued an order granting the writ of preliminary injunction ex parte. The petitioners’ motion to set aside this order was denied, prompting them to file the present petition for certiorari to annul the said order.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction ex parte.
RULING
No, the respondent judge did not commit a grave abuse of discretion. While the general rule requires notice before issuing a writ of preliminary injunction, the Rules of Court allow courts the discretion to issue it ex parte upon a showing that the applicant would suffer irreparable injury without immediate issuance. In this case, based on the allegations in the complaint that the petitioners’ continued collection of rents and fees would cause irreparable injury to the municipality—as it would be difficult to determine and recover the exact amounts collected by private individuals—the court found sufficient grounds for the ex parte issuance. The Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s exercise of discretion, stating its policy is not to interfere unless a serious abuse is clearly shown, which was not present here. The writ prayed for was denied.