Case Digest (G.R. No. 199324)
Facts:
Executive Secretary, Secretary of Finance, Commissioner of Customs, District Collector of Customs, Port of Aparri, Cagayan, District Collector of Customs, Port of San Fernando, La Union, and Head of the Land Transportation Office v. Forerunner Multi Resources, Inc., G.R. No. 199324, January 07, 2013, Supreme Court Second Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.In December 2002 President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Executive Order No. 156 (EO 156), which imposed a partial ban on the importation of used motor vehicles as part of measures to develop the domestic motor vehicle industry. In Executive Secretary v. Southwing Heavy Industries, Inc. and related cases (collectively, Southwing), this Court in 2006 upheld EO 156 as a valid exercise of police power and enforceable throughout the customs territory, but held Article 2, Section 3.1 of EO 156 void insofar as it was applied to the Subic Special Economic and Freeport Zone (Subic Freeport).
Forerunner Multi Resources, Inc. (respondent), a corporation importing used motor vehicles through the ports of Aparri and San Fernando, filed suit in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Aparri, Cagayan, seeking to declare EO 156 invalid on the grounds that it was ultra vires, violated due process and equal protection, and had been superseded by Executive Order No. 418 (EO 418) (which modified tariff rates for used motor vehicles). Respondent also sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin, litis pendentia, enforcement of EO 156.
Branch 6 of the RTC initially refused injunctive relief, but after re-raffle Branch 10 issued a TRO and thereafter a writ of preliminary injunction in its Order of 27 November 2008. On petitioners' motion for reconsideration the RTC reconsidered and lifted the injunction in an Order dated 7 July 2010, relying on the Court's Southwing ruling as negating any clear legal right in respondent to relief. Respondent elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals by a petition for certiorari.
The Court of Appeals granted certiorari, set aside the RTC's 7 July 2010 Order, and reinstated the RTC's 27 November 2008 preliminary injunction in a Decision dated 27 June 2011 (Resolution denying reconsideration dated 14 November 2011), finding that the RTC had committed grave abuse of discretion and that enforcement of EO 156 would cause respondent grave and irremediable financial loss; the CA analogized to this Court's decision in Filipino Metals Corporation v. Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry.
Petitioners (the government officials) filed a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari before this Court. Petitioners sought relief from the CA ruling, arguing that Southwing controls and precludes a finding of a clear legal right to ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in granting preliminary injunctive relief to enjoin enforcement of Executive Order No. 15...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)