GR L 23428; (November, 1968) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-23428 November 29, 1968
DETECTIVE & PROTECTIVE BUREAU, INC., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch VI, Court of First Instance of Manila, and FAUSTINO S. ALBERTO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Detective and Protective Bureau, Inc. filed a complaint (Civil Case No. 56949) against respondent Faustino S. Alberto for accounting with preliminary injunction and receivership. The complaint alleged that Alberto, the former managing director, illegally seized corporate assets and records in June 1963, refused to vacate his office after his removal on January 14, 1964, and failed to render an accounting. The respondent Judge, Gaudencio Cloribel, after a hearing, granted a writ of preliminary injunction on June 18, 1964, conditioned on a P5,000 bond, which petitioner filed. On July 1, 1964, Alberto filed a motion to admit a counter-bond to lift the injunction. Despite petitioner’s opposition, respondent Judge issued an order on August 5, 1964, admitting the counter-bond and setting aside the writ of preliminary injunction. Petitioner filed this certiorari petition directly with the Supreme Court, contending the order was contrary to law and issued with grave abuse of discretion, without first filing a motion for reconsideration in the trial court.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order dated August 5, 1964, which admitted a counter-bond and dissolved the writ of preliminary injunction.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that the respondent Judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. A writ of preliminary injunction, being an interlocutory order, remains under the control of the court and may be dissolved or modified as justice requires, whether granted ex parte or after hearing. The discretion to dissolve an injunction rests primarily with the trial court, and its exercise should not be interfered with except in cases of manifest abuse, which petitioner failed to show. Furthermore, the petition was denied for failure to comply with the procedural requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration with the trial court before resorting to certiorari, giving it an opportunity to correct any error. The case did not fall under the exceptions to this rule, such as where the order is a patent nullity or where there is a deprivation of due process.