ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 150922. October 15, 2003]

vs. PHIL. VILLAGE HOTEL

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this court dated OCT 15 2003.

G.R. No. 150922 (Government Service Insurance System vs. Philippine Village Hotel, Inc.)

RESOLUTION

The Government Service Insurance Corporation (GSIS), in a Petition for Review on Certiorari dated January 17, 2002, assails the July 24, 2001 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR CV No. 61355, as well as the November 22, 2001 CA Resolution denying its Motion for Reconsideration.

During the pendency of said Petition in this Court, Petitioner GSIS filed an Urgent Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction [1] cralaw dated August 6, 2003 praying that Respondent Philippine Village Hotel, Inc. be enjoined from removing a generator set and all chattels from the premises of the Philippine Village Hotel. Petitioner contends that it is the absolute owner of the generator set by virtue of an extra-judicial foreclosure of the Philippine Village Hotel, its annexes and chattels therein.

Petitioner averred in its Motion that on July 30, 2003, respondent through its representatives removed and tried to transport the generator away from the hotel premises. Respondent's representatives were prevented by the security force of Nayong Pilipino Foundation, the owner of the land where the hotel building stands, from transporting the same out of the Nayong Pilipino complex. The payloader which could have transported the generator is still parked near the hotel premises, ready to transport it at a moment's notice. The generator was allegedly due for repairs: In support of its Motion, petitioner attached thereto a copy of the alleged chattel mortgage [2] cralaw as well as other supporting documents.

In refutation, respondent submitted its Comment/Opposition dated August 21, 2003 [3] cralaw contending that the extra-judicial foreclosure has been superseded by the execution of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) entered into by the parties on December 13, 1989. Petitioner's claim of ownership over the generator, therefore, relies solely on the premise that the extra-judicial foreclosure is still valid and binding up to the present.

We rule that petitioner is not entitled to the issuance of the writ.Section 3, Rule 58, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

"SEC. 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction.- A preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established:

"(a)���� That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, or in requiring the performance of an act or acts, either for a limited period or perpetually;

"(b)���� That the commission, continuance or non-performance of the act or acts complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or

"(c)���� That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual."

Well-settled is the rule that before a writ of preliminary injunction may be issued, there must be a clear showing that there exists a right to be protected, and that the acts against which the writ is to be directed are violative of the said right. [4] cralaw Petitioner has failed to prove such right and that the acts against which the writ is to be directed are violative of said right.

First, it failed to establish its right over the generator set. The generator was not shown to be one of the properties included in the chattel mortgage because the copy submitted before the Court did not include the list of mortgaged properties.

Second, petitioner failed to show that the subject generator is actually one of the properties included in the alleged chattel mortgage executed between petitioner and respondent.

Third, all the other documents attached by petitioner to the motion have not disclosed its right over the generator.

Fourth, respondent was able to demonstrate prima facie that the generator is owned by Subic Hermosa Cyber City Development Corporation (Subic Hermosa) which leased it to the former. [5] cralaw The generator arrived in Subic Bay Freeport [6] cralaw on May 17, 2000, having been bought by Asia International Auctioneers, Inc. which in turn sold it to Subic Hermosa. Thus, the generator could not have been one of the properties included in the chattel mortgage because it arrived in the country years after the October 14, 1988 extra-judicial foreclosure sale.

Fifth, the writ prayed for cannot issue as a blanket prohibition against all other movables within the hotel because they may not be covered by the chattel mortgage and may be owned by persons other than the parties herein.

WHEREFORE, petitioner's urgent Motion for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.)JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Supp. Rollo, pp. 1-14.

[2] cralaw Annex "E"; id., p. 20.

[3] cralaw Supp. rollo, pp. 40-45.

[4] cralaw Gov. Garcia v. Hon. Burgos, 353 Phil. 740, June 29, 1998.

[5] cralaw Certification dated August 21, 2003; supp. rollo, p. 47.

[6] cralaw The arrival is evidenced by the Declaration of Admission of Articles to Subic Bay Freeport by Registered Enterprise admission number 65228; rollo, p. 51.


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com