Case Digest (G.R. No. 111397)
Facts:
Hon. Alfredo Lim and Rafaelito Garayblas v. The Court of Appeals, Hon. Wilfredo Reyes and Bistro Pigalle, Inc., G.R. No. 111397, August 12, 2002, Supreme Court Third Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are Hon. Alfredo Lim (then Mayor of Manila) and Rafaelito Garayblas; respondent is Bistro Pigalle, Inc. (owner-operator of the New Bangkok Club and the Exotic Garden Restaurant), and Judge Wilfredo Reyes of Branch 36, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila is a respondent in the certiorari proceedings before the Court of Appeals.On December 7, 1992, Bistro filed Civil Case No. 92-63712 in the RTC seeking mandamus and prohibition with a prayer for temporary restraining order (TRO) or preliminary injunction after policemen acting on Mayor Lim’s instructions inspected and investigated Bistro’s license and its employees’ work permits and health certificates, causing disruption and stoppage of its night-club and restaurant operations; Lim also refused to accept Bistro’s business-license and staff work-permit applications for 1993. Bistro invoked this Court’s pronouncement in De la Cruz v. Paras (that municipalities may regulate but may not prohibit nightclubs) as part of its argument.
The RTC issued a TRO dated December 29, 1992 restraining respondents from inspecting or otherwise interfering with Bistro’s operations, and after hearings granted a writ of prohibitory preliminary injunction on January 20, 1993 enjoining Mayor Lim and his agents from inspecting, investigating, closing or impeding Bistro’s operations while the petition was pending; the court denied the mandatory injunction and reserved ruling on mandamus. Despite the injunction, Lim issued a closure order effective January 23, 1993 and policemen attempted to execute it; Bistro moved for contempt but later withdrew on Lim’s assurance to respect the injunction. Lim’s agents again disrupted operations on multiple dates in February and March 1993.
Lim moved to dissolve the injunction and to dismiss, asserting his statutory authority as mayor to issue, suspend, revoke and inspect licenses and permits under Section 11(l) of the Revised Charter of the City of Manila and Section 455(3)(iv) of the Local Government Code; the RTC denied the motion in an order dated March 2, 1993 and authorized Bistro to resume operations and deferred contempt hearings to allow elevation to the Supreme Court.
Lim filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA) on March 10, 1993; the CA denied relief in a Decision dated March 25, 1993 and denied reconsideration on July 13, 1993, upholding the RTC’s issuance of the preliminary injunction as within its discretion to preserve the status quo. Separate...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the respondent RTC judge commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the TRO and the writ of prohibitory preliminary injunction (orders of December 29, 1992; January 20, 1993; and March 2, 1993)?
- Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible errors in its Decision of March 25, 1993 and Resolution of July 13, 1993 upholding the RTC orders?
- Did Civil Case No. 92-63712 and CA-G.R. SP No. 30381 become moot and academic when Bistro’s establishments were closed ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)