FACTS:

Sumifru, a domestic corporation engaged in the production and export of Cavendish bananas, filed a Complaint for Injunction and Specific Performance with Application for Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order against respondents spouses Danilo and Cerina Cereño. Sumifru alleged that the spouses Cereño violated their growership agreements by harvesting bananas without consent, packing them in boxes not provided by Sumifru, and selling them to buyers other than Sumifru. Despite demands to comply with their contractual obligations, the spouses Cereño refused to heed the demands. Sumifru sought the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Prohibitory/Mandatory Injunction and prayed for a Temporary Restraining Order restraining the spouses Cereño from various acts in violation of their agreements and compelling them to comply with their obligations. The Regional Trial Court denied Sumifru's application for a writ of preliminary injunction and its motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's denial, finding that Sumifru did not satisfy all the legal requisites for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and that the injury claimed by Sumifru can be compensated by damages. Sumifru filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court, raising two issues for resolution.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the spouses Cereño validly terminated the growership contracts despite the absence of any legal basis.

2. Whether or not Sumifru's right to the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction was put in serious doubt by the spouses Cereño's claim of termination of the growership contracts.

RULING:

1. The Court of Appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. The RTC also did not err in denying the application for the writ. The Court found that Sumifru did not satisfy all the legal requisites for the issuance of the writ. The Court held that Sumifru's rights under the agreements were disputed, and any injury it may suffer can be compensated by damages. The issuance of the injunction would effectively dispose of the main case.

PRINCIPLES:

• In order to grant a writ of preliminary injunction, the requisites of the Rules of Court must be satisfied.

• The court may deny the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction if the rights of the party seeking the injunction are disputed.

• Injunctive reliefs should not have the effect of disposing of the main case.