View full case

BUREAU OF CUSTOMS v. CA-CAGAYAN DE ORO STATION

FACTS:

The consolidated petitions in this case involve a dispute between Reta International Corporation (Reta) and the Bureau of Customs (BOC) regarding the closure of the designated examination area (DEA) at the Asia Cargo and Container Terminal Services Inc. (ACY).

Reta, the owner and operator of ACY, entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the BOC in 2009, allowing the free use of ACY as the DEA for container vans in the Port of Davao. However, the BOC revoked the MOA in 2010, citing strained relations and the availability of space at another location for examination of shipments.

Reta filed a Complaint seeking a preliminary injunction and restraining order against the BOC and Atty. Castigador, alleging that Atty. Castigador ordered the closure of ACY and prevented customs examiners from entering the premises. The trial court granted Reta's motion for a writ of preliminary injunction, directing the petitioners to cease implementing the closure of the DEA and continue the enforcement of the MOA.

Meanwhile, Reta also filed a petition for contempt against Atty. Castigador for allegedly violating a status quo ante order and making false statements. The trial court found Atty. Castigador guilty of indirect contempt and issued a warrant for his arrest. Atty. Castigador filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court, challenging the trial court's orders and alleging violation of his rights to due process and bias of the judge.

The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed Reta's petition for certiorari against the trial court's order granting the writ of preliminary injunction, ruling that the trial court was justified in issuing the injunction. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the CA.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not G.R. No. 192809 and G.R. Nos. 193588 & 193590-91 have been mooted.

  2. Whether or not the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting a writ of preliminary injunction.

  3. Whether the requirements for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction were met.

  4. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by the petitioner.

  5. Whether or not the Regional Trial Court (RTC) erred in granting the petition for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.

RULING:

  1. G.R. No. 192809 and G.R. Nos. 193588 & 193590-91 have been mooted because their main cases have already been terminated and are already elevated to the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 201650.

  2. The trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting a writ of preliminary injunction as the petitioner did not have a clear and unmistakable right to be protected, there was no material and substantial invasion of such right, and there was no urgent need for the writ to prevent irreparable injury.

  3. The Court held that the requirements for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction were not met. The petitioner did not have a clear and unmistakable right on the conduct of examination in the premises, as the MOA between the parties allowed either party to revoke it for cause. The revocation of the MOA by the BOC was within its authority, as stated in the MOA. Moreover, there was no substantial or material invasion of the petitioner's right, as the right did not exist. Lastly, the damage or injury alleged by the petitioner was not irreparable, as he was able to quantify his loss of earnings.

  4. The Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by the petitioner. The March 19, 2010 Order of the RTC in Civil Case No. 33,275-10 is reinstated.

  5. The writ of preliminary injunction issued by the RTC on April 19, 2010, in Civil Case No. 33,275-10 is lifted. The corresponding branch of the RTC is ordered to continue the trial with dispatch.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A writ of preliminary injunction is a preservative remedy for the protection of substantial rights and interests. It is not a cause of action itself, but a mere provisional remedy adjunct to a main suit.

  • The requisites for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction are: (a) the applicant must have a clear and unmistakable right to be protected, (b) there is a material and substantial invasion of such right, (c) there is an urgent need for the writ to prevent irreparable injury to the applicant, and (d) no other ordinary, speedy, and adequate remedy exists to prevent the infliction of irreparable injury.

  • Before the courts may issue a writ of preliminary injunction, it is essential that the party seeking its issuance be able to establish the existence of a right to be protected. It must be a right that is actual, clear, and existing; not a mere contingent, abstract, or future right.

  • The invasion of the clear and unmistakable right must be material and substantial.

  • There must also be a showing of urgency to prevent irreparable injury. Injury is irreparable where there is no standard by which its amount can be measured with reasonable accuracy.

  • The requisites for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction are: the probability of irreparable injury, the inadequacy of pecuniary compensation, and the prevention of the multiplicity of suits.

  • Mere prima facie evidence is sufficient to establish the clear and unmistakable right and the substantial and material invasion thereof for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.

  • The aggrieved party may challenge the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction only on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the issuing court.

  • Grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of writs of preliminary injunction implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment that is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal aversion amounting to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act at all in contemplation of law.

  • Certiorari is a remedy directed against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, for the purpose of correcting errors of jurisdiction and of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

  • The grant or denial of a writ of preliminary injunction rests on the sound discretion of the court taking into consideration the facts of the particular case. The sole object of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard. However, when there is a serious question of law or a clear case of abuse of discretion, the court may set aside the findings of the trial court.