BACOLOD V LABAYEN

A restraining order, on the other hand, is issued to preserve the
status
BACOLOD v LABAYEN quo until the hearing of the application for preliminary injunction which
G.R. No. 157494 | December 10, 2004 cannot be issued ex parte. Under Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, a
judge may issue a temporary restraining order with a limited life of
twenty (20) days from date of issue. If before the expiration of the
twenty (20)-day period the application for preliminary injunction is
denied, the temporary restraining order would be
FACTS: Respondent City of Bacolod opposed the Schedule of deemed automatically vacated. If no action is taken by the judge on the
Automatic Water Rates Adjustment for the years 1999, 2000 and application for preliminary injunction within the said twenty (20) days,
2001published by the petitioner Labayen. It alleged that the proposed the temporary restraining order would automatically expire on the 20th
water rates would violate due process as they were to be imposed day by the sheer force of law, no judicial declaration to that effect being
without the public hearing. Hence, it prayed that before the hearing of necessary.
the main case, a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction
be issued. Hence, in the case at bar, since no preliminary injunction was issued,
the temporary restraining order granted automatically expired after
On February 24, 2000, on the same date requested, respondent court twenty (20) days under the Rules. The fact that respondent court
heard respondents application for temporary restraining order and merely ordered "the respondent[,] its agents, representatives or any
issued an Order commanding petitioner to stop, desist and refrain from person acting in his behalf to stop, desist and refrain from
implementing the proposed water rates. implementing in their billings the new water rate increase which will
start on March 1, 2000" without stating the period for the restraint does
not convert the temporary restraining order to a preliminary injunction.
On December 21, 2000, respondent court issued the assailed Decision
granting the final injunction which allegedly confirmed the previous
preliminary injunction. The rule against the non-extendibility of the twenty (20)-day limited
period of effectivity of a temporary restraining order is absolute if
issued by a regional trial court. The failure of respondent court to fix a
Petitioner filed its Motion for Reconsideration of the assailed decision period for the ordered restraint did not lend the temporary restraining
on January 11, 2001 asserting, among others, that the case was not order a breath of semi-permanence which can only be characteristic of
yet ripe for decision when the court granted the final injunction, the a preliminary injunction. The twenty (20)-day period provided by the
petitioner having had no opportunity to file its answer, avail of the Rules of Court should be deemed incorporated in the Order where
mandatory pre-trial conference and have the case tried on the merits. there is an omission to do so. It is because of this rule on non-
extendibility that respondent City was prompted to move that hearings
be set for its application of a preliminary injunction. Respondent City
ISSUE: Whether or not preliminary injunction had been issued
cannot take advantage of this omission by respondent trial court.
RULING: NO.
Third. Even if we assume that the issued Order was a preliminary
The sequence of events and the proceedings that transpired in the trial injunction, petitioner is correct in contending that the assailed Decision
court make a clear conclusion that the Order issued was a temporary is premature.
restraining order and not a preliminary injunction.
The records reveal that respondent court did not resolve petitioner's
First. It can be gleaned from the foregoing that both parties and Motion for Reconsideration of the Order denying its Motion to Dismiss
respondent trial court have consistently referred to the directive as a before it issued the assailed Decision. Consequently, there was no
temporary restraining order. It was only in the respondent court's answer filed by petitioner, no joinder of issues, no mandatory pre-trial
assailed Decision that the Order was referred to as a preliminary conference, and no trial on the merits, yet, a Decision was handed
injunction. down by the respondent trial court.
Again, it was only when petitioner expressed its vehement objection on The short circuiting of the procedural process denied the petitioner due
the ruling that the final injunction confirmed the preliminary injunction process of law. It was not able to allege its defenses in an answer and
previously issued, when the respondent City and the respondent trial prove them in a hearing. The convoluted procedure allowed by the
court started to insist that the questioned Order was a preliminary respondent trial court and the pleadings filed by the parties which are
injunction. Given the previous undeviating references to it as a not models of clarity certainly created confusion. But this confusion
temporary restraining order, respondents cannot now consider it as a should not be seized as a reason to deny a party the constitutional
preliminary injunction to justify the validity of the assailed Decision. The right to due process. Over and above every desideratum in litigation is
attendant facts and circumstances clearly show that the respondent fairness. All doubts should be resolved in favor of fairness.
trial court issued a temporary restraining order.
Second. Injunction is a judicial writ, process or proceeding whereby a

party is ordered to do or refrain from doing a certain act. It may be the
main action or merely a provisional remedy for and as an incident in
the main action.
The main action for injunction is distinct from the provisional or

ancillary remedy of preliminary injunction which cannot exist except
only as part or an incident of an independent action or proceeding. As
a matter of course, in an action for injunction, the auxiliary remedy of
preliminary injunction, whether prohibitory or mandatory, may issue.
Under the law, the main action for injunction seeks a judgment
embodying a final injunction which is distinct from, and should not be
confused with, the provisional remedy of preliminary injunction, the
sole object of which is to preserve the status quo until the merits can
be heard. A preliminary injunction is granted at any stage of an action
or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order. It persists until it is
dissolved or until the termination of the action without the court issuing
a final injunction.

BACOLOD V LABAYEN

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BACOLOD V LABAYEN

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A restraining order, on the other hand, is issued to preserve the

Second. Injunction is a judicial writ, process or proceeding whereby a

The main action for injunction is distinct from the provisional or

You might also like