Case Digest (G.R. No. 172990)
Facts:
Dolmar Real Estate Development Corporation, Mariano K. Tan, Sr., Mariano John L. Tan, Jr. and Philip L. Tan v. Court of Appeals, Regional Trial Court, Branch 211, Mandaluyong City, Spouses Philip & Nancy Young, G.R. No. 172990, February 27, 2008, First Division, Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., writing for the Court.On June 1, 2005, respondents Spouses Philip and Nancy Young filed with the Regional Trial Court (Branch 211, Mandaluyong City) a complaint for specific performance and damages against petitioners Dolmar Real Estate Development Corporation and individual Tans, docketed as SEC Case No. MC05-093. The complaint sought, among other reliefs, issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a writ of preliminary injunction to (a) enjoin petitioners from violating a March 4, 2003 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and a May 16, 2003 Shareholders Agreement; (b) restore the Youngs’ authority to manage the corporation; (c) enforce quorum and consensus rules in corporate acts; and (d) prevent a scheduled board meeting on June 3, 2005.
The trial court issued a 72-hour restraining order on June 2, 2005, and on June 17, 2005, after a summary hearing, granted the TRO and set a hearing on the preliminary injunction for June 21, 2005, accepting a P100,000 bond posted by the Youngs. On October 14, 2005, the trial court issued an Order declaring a status quo ante (the situation before December 13, 2004), directing observance of a four-director quorum and consensus rules, requiring countersignature by the Youngs on certain corporate checks and banking transactions, and ordering mutual compliance with duties under the MOA and Shareholders Agreement; the order kept the TRO bond in force and designated the sheriff to enforce compliance.
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA) Fifth Division, alleging the trial court’s status quo ante Order was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. On November 15, 2005 the CA dismissed the petition as fatally defective (absence of certification against forum shopping, improper verification, and missing material record excerpts). Petitioners moved for reconsideration and to admit an amended petition; the CA reinstated the petition by Resolution dated December 7, 2005.
Thereafter, the CA, by Resolution dated January 25, 2006, denied petitioners’ application for a writ of preliminary injunction, reasoning that the trial court’s status quo ante merely allowed the company to be run in accordance with existing agreements during the case’s pendency and that petitioners had not shown any of the grounds en...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioners’ application for a writ of preliminary injunction?
- Did petitioners establish the requisites under Section 3 of Rule 58 for issuance of a preliminary injunction (a clear and unmistakable right and probable injustice during pendency)?
- Must a resolution denying or granting a preliminary injunction include detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law as required...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)