G.R. No. 175145
March 28, 2008
SPOUSE SPOUSES S ALFRED ALFREDO O and SHRLE! SHRLE! !AP vs. N"ERNA N"ERNA"ON "ONAL AL E#$HANG E#$HANGE E %AN& G.R. No. 175145 March 28, 2008' Fac()* The question is: Under the circumstances obtaining in this case, may the trial court recall
and dissolve the preliminary injunction it issued despite the rulings of the Court of Appeals and by this Court that its issuance was not tainted with grave abuse of discretion discretion !e hold that the trial court may still order the dissolution of the preliminary injunction it previously issued. !e do not agree with petitioners" argument that the trial court may no longer dissolve the preliminary injunction because this Court previously ruled that its issuance was not tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The issuance of a preliminary preliminary injunction is di#erent from its dissolution. $ts issuance is governed governed by %ection &,&'(ule )' of the *++ (ules of Civil -rocedure while the grounds for its dissolution are contained in %ection , (ule )' of the *++ (ules of Civil -rocedure. As long as the party see/ing the dissolution dissolution of the prelimina preliminary ry injuncti injunction on can prove the presenc presence e of any of the grounds grounds for its dissol dis soluti ution, on, same same may be dis dissol solved ved notwit notwithst hstand anding ing that that this this Court Court previ previous ously ly ruled ruled that that its issuance was not tainted with grave abuse of discretion. %ection of (ule )' reads: %ection . 0rounds for objection to, or for motion of dissolution of, injunction or restraining order. 1 The application for injunction or restraining restraining order may be denied, upon a showing of its insu2c insu2cien iency cy.. The injunc injunctio tion n or restr restrain aining ing order order may may also also be denied denied,, or, if grant granted, ed, may be dissolved, on other grounds upon a2davits of the party or person enjoined, which may be opposed by the applicant also by a2davits. $t may further be denied, or, if granted, may be dissolved, if it appears after hearing that although the applicant is entitled to the injunction or restraining order, the issuance or continuance thereof, as the case may be, would cause irreparable damage to the party or person enjoined while the applicant can be fully compensated for such damages as he may su#er, and the former 3les a bond in an amount 34ed by the court conditioned that he will pay all damag damages es which which the applica applicant nt may su#er by the denial denial or the dis dissol soluti ution on of the injuncti injunction on or restraining order. $f it appears that the e4tent of the preliminary injunction or restraining order granted is too great, it may be modi3ed. Under the afore5quoted section, a preliminary injunction may be dissolved if it appears after hearing that that althou although gh the applic applican antt is entit entitled led to the injunc injunctio tion n or restr restrain aining ing order order,, the iss issuan uance ce or continuance thereof, as the case may be, would cause irreparable damage to the party or person enjoined while the applicant can be fully compensated for such damages as he may su#er, and the former 3les a bond in an amount 34ed by the court on condition that he will pay all damages which the applicant may su#er by the denial or the dissolution of the injunction or restraining order. Two conditions must concur: 3rst, the court in the e4ercise e4ercise of its discretion, discretion, 3nds that the continuance of the injunc injunctio tion n would would cause cause grea greatt damage damage to the defend defendan ant, t, while while the plaint plainti# i# can can be fully fully &+ compensated for such damages as he may su#er6 second, the defendant 3les a counter5bond. The 7rder of the trial court dated 8+ April 899 is based on this ground. $n the case at bar, the trial court, after hearing, found that respondents duly showed that they would su#er great and irreparable injury if the injunction shall continue to e4ist. As to the second condition, the trial court li/ewise found that respondents were willing to post a counter5bond which could cover the damages that petitioners may su#er in case the judgment turns out to be adverse to them. The 7rder of the trial court to recall and dissolve the preliminary injunction is subject to the 3ling and approval of the counter5bond that it ordered. ailure to post the required counter5bond will necessarily lead to the non5dissolution of the preliminary injunction. The 7rder of ;issolution cannot be implemented until and unless the required counter5bond has been posted. The well5/nown rule rule is that the matter of issuance issuance of a writ of preliminary preliminary injunction is addresse addressed d to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, and its action shall not be disturbed on appeal unless it is demonstrated that it acted without jurisdiction or in e4cess of jurisdiction or, otherwise, in grave abuse of discretion.
