THIRD
DIVISION
|
SPOUSES MANUEL & LUISA TAN LEE,
RENWICK WARREN LEE and JANSSEN THADDEUS LEE,
Petitioners, - versus
- HON. COURT OF APPEALS and CHINA
BANKING CORPORATION, Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 147191 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CALLEJO, SR., CHICO-NAZARIO, and NACHURA, JJ. Promulgated: |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
This is a Motion
for Reconsideration seeking the reversal of our 27 July 2006 Decision in a
Petition for Review on Certiorari against
the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals promulgated on
In our
While we agree with petitioners that “the assessment
and evaluation of evidence in the issuance of the writ of preliminary
injunction involves findings of facts ordinarily left to the trial court for
conclusive determination,” and that the Court of Appeals had been in error when
it sought to determine the facts based on evidence not presented or offered in
evidence in the trial court, we would still find grave abuse of discretion on
the part of the trial court even if the facts contested by petitioners are determined
in their favor. Section 5, Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure
provides:
Sec.5. Preliminary
injunction not granted without notice; exception. – No preliminary injunction shall be granted without hearing and prior
notice to the party or person sought to be enjoined. If it shall appear from facts shown by
affidavits or by the verified application that great or irreparable injury
would result to the applicant before the matter can be heard on notice, the
court to which the application for preliminary injunction was made, may issue ex parte a temporary restraining order
to be effective only for a period of twenty (20) days from service on the party
or person sought to be enjoined, except as herein provided. Within
the said twenty-day period, the court must order said party or person to show
cause, at a specified time and place, why the injunction should not be granted,
determine within the same period whether or not the preliminary injunction
shall be granted, and accordingly issue the corresponding order.
The trial court failed to comply with the
above provision when it failed to let respondent CBC finish its presentation of
its evidence proving why injunction should not be granted.
Hearings on the application for
preliminary injunction were held on
On the hearing held on
As early as
Section 5, Rule 135 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure provides:
Sec. 5. Inherent powers of courts. – Every court
shall have the power: x x x (b) to enforce order in proceedings before it, or
before a person or persons empowered to conduct a judicial investigation under
its authority; x x x (d) to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of
its ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner connected with
a case before it, in every manner appertaining thereto; x x x
By means of its inherent powers stated in
the above provision, the trial court should have forced respondent CBC, under
pain of contempt, to finish presenting its evidence within the scheduled
hearings, and to focus only on the most important evidence. It should have proceeded with marathon
hearings if necessary, which would seldom be the case because of its power to
limit the same in accordance with the summary nature of such proceeding. But the trial court cannot issue a writ of preliminary
injunction based solely on plaintiff’s evidence, as was expressly stated in the
Order itself. The trial court cannot,
without gravely abusing its discretion, issue such writ prior to the
termination of the presentation of evidence by the party against whom the
injunction shall be issued. The order to
show cause (why the injunction should not be granted) stated in Section 5, Rule
58, is precisely directed on such party, and not on the party asking for the
injunction, and therefore it was an error for the trial court to have given
priority to petitioners’ presentation of evidence.[2]
Upon taking
a second hard look into the issues in the case at bar, we failed to find any
new argument to convince us to reverse our finding that there was grave abuse
of discretion in the issuance of the subject Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
We,
however, agree with petitioners that they could not be faulted for the abuse of
discretion on the part of the trial court.
Petitioners did not seek the termination of the hearings for the
issuance of the writ, but merely asked that respondent CBC be cited for
contempt in view of the foreclosure sale scheduled after the expiry of the
Temporary Restraining Order. As such,
petitioners should not be deprived of the right to a Preliminary Injunction, if
warranted, just because of errors in its issuance not attributable to
them. We therefore resolve that the
trial court should be given time within which to proceed with the hearings concerning
the preliminary injunction in accordance and in compliance with the procedures
laid down in our Rules of Court.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is
DENIED. Our
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
On
leave
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Resolution were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Resolution were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice