G.R. No. L-24581 January 31, 1966
MIGUEL PEREZ RUBIO, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SAMUEL REYES, ROBERT O. PHILLIPS and MAGDALENA YSMAEL PHILLIPS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Miguel Perez Rubio and his wife (the Perez Rubios) owned shares of stock in Hacienda Benito, Inc., registered in their names and in the names of Joaquin Ramirez and Joaquin Ramirez, Jr. On August 13, 1963, the Perez Rubios, with the conformity of the Ramirezes, sold these shares to Robert O. Phillips and Sons, Inc. for P5,500,000.00, payable in installments under specific conditions. The agreement provided that the stock certificates would not be transferred until the first installment due within sixty days was paid in full. On June 23, 1964, an agreement was executed deferring payment of the April 30, 1964 installment to August 31, 1964, with Robert O. Phillips and his wife, Magdalena Ysmael Phillips, jointly and severally guaranteeing the obligations.
Subsequently, the Phillips spouses and their corporation entered into negotiations to sell their shares in Hacienda Benito, Inc. to Alfonso T. Yuchengco. The Perez Rubios, through their attorney-in-fact, reminded the Phillips of their obligations and notified Yuchengco that the shares were still subject to the unpaid balance. On March 26, 1965, the Phillips, through counsel, demanded the withdrawal of the Perez Rubios’ notice by March 29, threatening legal action. On March 27, 1965, the Perez Rubios responded by cancelling negotiations and threatening to file a court action if the full amount due was not paid by noon of March 31, 1965.
However, on March 30, 1965, the Phillips (individuals and corporation) preemptively filed Civil Case No. 8632 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against Miguel Perez Rubio. Upon an ex-parte petition, respondent Judge Samuel Reyes issued a writ of preliminary injunction on April 1, 1965, restraining Perez Rubio from interfering with the Phillips-Yuchengco transaction and from enforcing any claim for amounts due under the agreements. The respondent judge later denied Perez Rubio’s motion to dissolve the injunction. Perez Rubio filed an answer with a counterclaim for the unpaid balance and was charged with contempt.
Perez Rubio filed the original petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the respondent court in taking cognizance of the case and issuing the ex-parte injunction. He later filed an amended supplemental petition impleading additional parties (Victoria Valley Development Corporation and Manufacturers Bank and Trust Co.) and praying for various reliefs, including contempt citations, a mandatory injunction, and a writ of attachment.

ISSUE

The primary issue resolved in this resolution pertains to the procedural matters before the Supreme Court: (1) the admission of the amended supplemental petition; (2) the requests for contempt citations, a mandatory injunction, and a writ of preliminary attachment; and (3) the respondents’ ex-parte petition for modification or dissolution of the preliminary injunction issued by the Supreme Court.

RULING

The Supreme Court resolved the procedural matters as follows:
1. The amended supplemental petition was admitted. The Court found the facts alleged therein sufficient, if proven, to entitle the petitioner to relief against the additional parties named.
2. The petitions for contempt citations, a mandatory injunction, and a writ of preliminary attachment were deferred. The Court held that these matters could best be taken up only after a full hearing of the case on the merits, as resolving them would require a consideration of the main issue involved.
3. The respondents’ ex-parte petition for modification of the preliminary injunction issued by the Supreme Court was denied. The Court noted that Hacienda Benito, Inc. was not a party to the case, and the injunction was directed exclusively to the parties herein, enjoining only them from acts that would diminish the value of the shares or deplete the hacienda’s assets. The petition for modification was therefore not well-founded.
4. Regarding the respondents’ alternative petition for dissolution of the Supreme Court’s preliminary injunction upon filing a bond, the Court ordered the respondents to serve a copy on the petitioner, who was given ten days to submit his comments.