View full case

SEMIRARA COAL CORPORATION v. HGL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

FACTS:

Petitioner Semirara Mining Corporation holds a Coal Operating Contract over the Island of Semirara. Meanwhile, private respondent HGL Development Corporation holds a Forest Land Grazing Lease Agreement (FLGLA) for a specific area within Semirara. Petitioner requested permission from HGL to pass through the FLGLA property, which HGL granted with the condition that it would not violate the FLGLA. However, petitioner proceeded to erect buildings, conduct blasting and excavation, and maintain a stockyard without permission, causing damage to HGL's land used for cattle grazing. HGL demanded disclosure and prohibited further construction, but petitioner ignored it.

The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) cancelled HGL's FLGLA due to its failure to pay rent and submit reports. HGL contested the cancellation, but the DENR denied its request. HGL then filed separate complaints against the DENR and petitioner, seeking relief and damages. The trial court considered HGL's application for a writ of preliminary injunction against the petitioner as submitted for decision when the petitioner failed to attend the hearings. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of this decision, which was denied. Another motion for reconsideration of the denial was then filed by the petitioner.

The petitioner also filed a motion for reconsideration of a resolution, which was opposed by HGL. The motion was declared submitted for resolution. Subsequently, the trial court granted the prayer for the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, ordering the petitioner to restore possession of the subject land to HGL and restraining the petitioner from encroaching on the land or conducting any activities in it. The petitioner did not seek reconsideration of this order. The petitioner then elevated the resolution and the writ to the Court of Appeals, questioning several issues. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, finding that HGL has a cause of action based on its FLGLA with the DENR, and that the petitioner was not denied due process as it had the opportunity to present evidence but failed to do so.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the respondent has a cause of action under the principal action and the ancillary remedy of injunction.

  2. Whether or not the petitioner was deprived of due process.

  3. Whether or not the court a quo erred in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction without resolving the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.

  4. Whether or not the court a quo was correct in disregarding the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner.

  5. Whether or not the case falls within the purview of Presidential Decree (PD) 605.

  6. Whether the Regional Trial Court properly issued the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction without giving petitioner the opportunity to present evidence and without resolving the Motion for Reconsideration.

  7. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction without petitioner filing a motion for reconsideration from the trial court's resolution.

  8. Whether the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction is proper in a case for accion publiciana.

RULING:

  1. The court ruled against the petitioner on the first issue, stating that if the respondent has a cause of action under the principal action, they also have a cause of action under the ancillary remedy of injunction.

  2. The court ruled against the petitioner on the second issue, finding that the petitioner was not deprived of due process. The petitioner was given two settings to present its evidence but failed to do so. The sudden resignation of their lawyer does not excuse their absence as the law firm could have assigned another lawyer to attend the hearings.

  3. The court ruled against the petitioner on the third issue, stating that the court a quo cannot be faulted for not resolving the Motion for Reconsideration dated July 12, 2004, as it was a second motion for reconsideration of a prior motion that had already been resolved.

  4. The court ruled against the petitioner on the fourth issue, stating that the court a quo was correct in disregarding the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner. The evidence was attached to an "Omnibus Motion" and was not properly identified, marked, and formally offered as evidence.

  5. The court ruled against the petitioner on the fifth issue, stating that the case does not fall within the purview of PD 605 which bans the issuance of preliminary injunctions in cases involving concessions, licenses, and permits for the exploitation of natural resources. The issue in the case does not involve the petitioner's coal operation contract.

  6. The trial court did not err in issuing the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction without giving petitioner the opportunity to present evidence. Petitioner failed to appear on the scheduled hearing dates, thus preventing itself from presenting evidence. The trial court correctly refused to consider the letter requesting a postponement as it was not a proper motion and there was no proof of the sender's authority.

  7. The Court of Appeals should not have granted the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction because petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration from the trial court's resolution. A motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite for the grant of the extraordinary writ of certiorari.

  8. The issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction is proper in this case, even if it is an accion publiciana. Article 539 of the New Civil Code allows for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to restore the possession of a lawful possessor whose possession has been disturbed.

PRINCIPLES:

  • An ancillary remedy of injunction can be granted if there is a cause of action under the principal action.

  • Due process requires a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and lack of opportunity to be heard is what the law proscribes.

  • A court is not duty bound to resolve subsequent, reiterative, and second motions for reconsideration.

  • Documentary evidence should be properly identified, marked, and formally offered as evidence in accordance with the Rules on Evidence.

  • PD 605 prohibits the issuance of preliminary injunctions in cases involving concessions, licenses, and permits for the exploitation of natural resources.

  • A writ of preliminary mandatory injunction cannot be used to take property out of the possession of one party and place it into that of another who has no clear legal right thereto.

  • A complaint for accion publiciana does not preclude the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to restore possession during the pendency of the action.

  • A motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the grant of the extraordinary writ of certiorari.

  • The right of lawful possession is protected and any disturbance of such possession is a ground for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction.

  • The urgency and necessity for the issuance of an injunction may be based on the potential material and substantial injury that the plaintiff stands to suffer.

  • The alleged cancellation of a license or lease does not automatically render it invalid until a separate case on its cancellation is resolved.

  • Unauthorized activities that violate the rights of a lessee or possessors may be enjoined to prevent further injustice and damage.