ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 137655. August 25, 1999]
MIGUELA CAFINO, et al. vs. NARCISO NICOLAS, et al.
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 25, 1999.
G.R. No. 137655 (Miguela Cafino, et al. vs. Narciso Nicolas, et al.)
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, wherein petitioners pray for the demolition of an existing firewall constructed by respondent allegedly on the boundary of their adjoining. Petitioners assail the Decision1 [Rollo, pp.39-41.] dated 17 February 1999 of the Court of Appeals.
Below are the facts according to the appellate court:
The petitioner filed a complaint against private respondents for injunction and damages, protesting the demolition/destruction of a wall which separates their lot from the property of private respondents. Both parties are claiming ownership over the wall.
Upon filing of the complaint, respondent judge issued a restraining order and, subsequently, a writ of preliminary injunction as prayed for by petitioners.
The private respondents forthwith filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied in the order now under attack, the dispositive portion of which states:
"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the court hereby denies the motion for reconsideration filed by the defendants praying for the reconsideration of the Order dated May 10, 1995.
However, the court hereby grants the prayer of the defendants for the
dissolution of the writ of preliminary injunction upon filing of the
counterbond in the amount of P300,000.00, subject to the approval of the
court, conditioned that defendants will play all damages which plaintiffs may
suffer by the dissolution of the preliminary injunction."
Because of the dissolution of the preliminary injunction, as directed in the aforesaid order, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration to revive the writ. The motion was denied. 2 [Id., at 39-40.]
Petitioners then went to the Court of Appeals on certiorari alleging that the trial court gravely abused its discretion in issuing its Order dissolving the preliminary injunction. The appellate court, however, issued the assailed decision dismissing their petition and ruling thus:
We uphold respondent judge. Under the rules, the injunction or restraining order, x x x, if granted may be dissolved, if it appears after hearing that although the applicant is entitled thereto, the issuance or continuance thereof would cause irreparable damage to the party enjoined while the applicant can be fully compensated for such damages as he may suffer and the party enjoined files a bond.
In the instant petition, respondent judge was called upon to exercise his discretion in determining the relative damages that may be suffered by the parties. We find that respondent judge had followed the rules and procedures, and exercised his discretion within the bounds. The Supreme Court in Inter-Asia Services Corporation Int'l. vs. CA (G.R. No. 106427, 263 SCRA 408 [October 21, 1996]), had occasion to say that the exercise of sound discretion by the lower court in injunctive matters should not be interfered with except in cases of manifest abuse. Under the facts of this case, we see no manifest abuse in the issuance of the assailed order.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition id DENIED. Respondent judge is ordered to proceed with the trial with dispatch.
SO ORDERED. 3 [Id., at 40-41.]
Without filing a Motion for Reconsideration, petitioners came to this Court raising the issue of whether the appellate court erred in holding that the trial court followed proper procedure and did not exercise its discretion when the trial court dissolve the preliminary injunction.
The petition lacks merit.
Rule 58 of the Rules of Court reads in part:
SEC. 68. Grounds for objection to, or for motion of dissolution of, injunction.-The injunction may be refused, or, if granted ex parte, may be dissolved, upon the insufficiency of the complaint as shown by the complaint itself, with or without the notice to the adverse party. It may also be refused or dissolved on other grounds upon affidavits on the part of the defendant which may be opposed by the plaintiff also by affidavits. It hearing that although the plaintiff is entitled to other injunction, the issuance or continuance thereof, as the case may be, he would cause great damage to the defendant while the plaintiff can be fully compensated for such fixed by the judge conditioned that he will pay all the damages which the plaintiff may suffer by the refusal or the dissolution of the injunction. If it appears that the extent of the preliminary injunction granted is too great, it must be modified.
The ruling of the Court in Director of Bureau of Telecommunications v. Aligaen 4 [33 SCRA 368 (1970).] correctly cited by the trial court, is that the mere filing of a counterbond does not automatically dissolve the preliminary injunction.5 Ibid., at 385.
5 Rather the preliminary injunction is dissolved upon order of the court. Such order dissolving the preliminary injunction issues when two conditions concur: first, the court in exercise of its discretion, finds that the continuance of the injunction would cause great damage to the defendant, while the plaintiff can be fully compensated for such damages as he may suffer, second the defendants files a counterbond.
The second condition was
fulfilled when respondents were allowed to file a counterbond in the amount of P300,000.00
conditioned that respondents shall pay all damages which petitioners may suffer
by the dissolution of the preliminary injunction.
The first condition was likewise fulfilled when the trial court found that:
After a careful evaluation of the environmental circumstances, the Court is inclined to agree that great damage will result to the defendants with the continuance of the writ of preliminary injunction while the plaintiffs can be fully compensated for such damages as they may suffer. Defendants have offered to file a counterbond in any amount in the discretion of the Court to answer for the damages which plaintiffs may suffer by the discontinuance for the injunction.
The Court of Appeals found no grave abuse of discretion by the trial court. Neither do we.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court resolved to DENY the petition."
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA
ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
