Case Digest (G.R. No. L-23428)
Facts:
Detective & Protective Bureau, Inc. v. The Honorable Gaudencio Cloribel and Fausto S. Alberto, G.R. No. L-23428, November 29, 1968, the Supreme Court En Banc, Zaldivar, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Detective & Protective Bureau, Inc. filed Civil Case No. 56949 in the Court of First Instance of Manila on May 4, 1964, against Fausto S. Alberto for accounting with prayer for a preliminary injunction and receivership. The complaint alleged that Alberto, who had been managing director from 1952 until January 14, 1964, seized and concealed corporate assets and records in June 1963, refused inspection by corporate members, illegally disposed of corporate funds contrary to a Board resolution of November 24, 1963, and continued to act as managing director despite a stockholders’ meeting on January 14, 1964 removing him and electing Jose de la Rosa in his stead.
The trial court (Branch VI, Court of First Instance of Manila) set the ancillary relief for hearing and required memoranda. On June 18, 1964 the respondent judge granted the writ of preliminary injunction restraining Alberto from exercising the functions of managing director, conditioned upon petitioner’s filing of a P5,000 bond. Petitioner filed the bond. While that injunction remained in force, Alberto filed a motion (recorded as filed July 1, 1964) to admit a counter-bond for the purpose of lifting the injunction; the motion itself does not appear in the record before the Supreme Court. On August 5, 1964 the respondent judge admitted the counter-bond of P5,000 and set aside the writ of preliminary injunction.
Believing the August 5 order was contrary to law and amounted to grave abuse of discretion, and asserting no plain, speedy and adequate remedy was available, petitioner filed an original petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction in this Court to annul the trial court’s order and to obtain a writ enjoining Alberto from acting as managing director. This Court gave due course to the petition but did not grant the requested preliminary injunction. Respondent Alberto filed an answer traversing the material allegations and justifying the trial court’s action.
From the pleadings the central controversy presented to the Court was whether the order of August 5, 1964 admitting the counter-bond and setting aside the preliminary injunction was contrary to law or procured with grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner argued, inter alia, that (1) the motion to admit the counter-bond was not supported by affidavits as required by Section 6, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court; (2) the injunction had been issued after hearing and therefore could not be dissolved; (3) public interest required maintenance of the writ because Alberto purportedly usurped corporate powers; and (4...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did petitioner forfeit the proper mode of relief by seeking certiorari without first seeking reconsideration in the trial court—i.e., should the petition be dismissed for failure to comply with procedural requirements?
- Was the trial court’s admission of the defendant’s counter-bond and dissolution of the writ of preliminary injunction invalid for lack of verification or supporting affidavits as required by Section 6, Rule 58?
- Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion or act contrary to law in admitting the counter-...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)