G.R. No. 190432 - Asia Brewery, Inc. vs. Equitable PCI Bank

The PCGG filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with an Urgent Prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
The petition assailed several orders of the Sandiganbayan, namely:

A Resolution dated July 26, 2001, granting TDFSI’s motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction against the enforcement of the March 11, 1986 Sequestration Order upon posting a bond of P100,000.00.
The issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and Preliminary Injunction dated August 3, 2001.
A Resolution dated October 5, 2001, holding in abeyance PCGG’s motion for reconsideration and suspending the implementation of the injunction.
A Resolution dated January 23, 2002, denying PCGG’s motion for reconsideration and omnibus motion while increasing the injunction bond to P1,000,000.
An Order dated January 23, 2002, setting the pre-trial and trial of the case.
An Order dated January 24, 2002, which reset the trial date.

By virtue of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1193, as amended by P.D. No. 1394, TDFSI was authorized by then-President Ferdinand Marcos to establish, operate, and maintain duty and tax free stores at international airports, seaports, and selected commercial locales.
On March 11, 1986, the PCGG issued a Sequestration Order against TDFSI’s facilities, assets, and funds.

This order was signed solely by Commissioner Mary Concepcion Bautista.
The order directed TDFSI to refrain from entering new contracts, disbursing funds (except for ordinary business expenses and salaries), and from withdrawing funds or moving any corporate records.

On the same day, the PCGG also issued a Freeze Order directing the Manager of Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) to block withdrawals, transfers, or remittances from TDFSI’s accounts.

TDFSI initially filed a petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Injunction (with a Preliminary Injunction or Restraining Order) on May 2, 1986, seeking to annul and prevent enforcement of the Sequestration Order.
The Court issued a Resolution on May 27, 1986 favoring the PCGG, which:

Upheld the sequestration of TDFSI’s assets.
Allowed an audit and inventory to be conducted by the Philippine Tourism Authority under supervision.
Permitted TDFSI to dispose of its existing stocks in the ordinary course of business subject to strict supervision.

On October 8, 1991, the petition in G.R. No. 74302 was dismissed without prejudice, leaving the possibility for re-filing before the Sandiganbayan.
Concurrent actions included:

The filing of a Complaint for Reconveyance, Reversion, Accounting, Restitution, and Damages by the PCGG on July 21, 1987 in Civil Case No. 0008.
TDFSI’s later filing, on December 18, 1991, of a Complaint for Injunction and Specific Performance (Civil Case No. 0142) assailing the validity of the Sequestration and Freeze Orders.

The Sandiganbayan dismissed Civil Case No. 0142 on June 15, 1992, reasoning that its issues were closely related to those in Civil Case No. 0008, and TDFSI’s motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied on September 23, 1992.
The case was later re-elevated to the Court in G.R. No. 107395, wherein on January 26, 2000, the Court reversed and set aside the Sandiganbayan’s resolutions concerning litis pendentia.
On July 26, 2001, the Sandiganbayan issued the assailed Resolution granting TDFSI’s motion for a writ of preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction and later issued the corresponding writ on August 3, 2001.
In response, the PCGG filed multiple motions, including an urgent motion to recall the writ, motions for reconsideration, and supplemental motions for reconsideration.
On October 5, 2001, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution holding the motions in abeyance.
Finally, on January 23–24, 2002, further orders were issued setting the pre-trial/trial schedules and denying the PCGG’s motions while increasing the injunction bond.

TDFSI's main contention is that the Sequestration and Freeze Orders were issued without:

Adequate investigation.
Notice or opportunity to present evidence.
A public hearing.
Adherence to PCGG rules—which required at least two commissioners to sign the order.

TDFSI also relied on the argument that, absent a case filed for the recovery of funds, the Sequestration Order was automatically lifted.
In support, TDFSI submitted documentary evidence including:

Its complaint filed in Civil Case No. 0142.
The General Information Sheet.
Relevant Presidential Decrees (Nos. 1193 and 1394).
The Sequestration Order and related correspondence.
A certification from the Sandiganbayan attesting that no recovery action on “ill-gotten wealth” had been initiated.

The PCGG, on the other hand, did not present evidence to counter these assertions.

Whether the Sandiganbayan acted arbitrarily and committed grave abuse of discretion—or acted with lack or excess of jurisdiction—in issuing the assailed preliminary injunctive orders.

Specifically, whether the issuance of the writ of preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction contravened established legal principles.

Whether the principles of res judicata, litis pendentia, and law of the case preclude TDFSI from re-litigating the validity of the Sequestration Order, given the Court’s earlier interlocutory resolution.

Whether the requisite elements for the issuance of a preliminary injunction—namely, a clear and unmistakable legal right and imminent irreparable damage—are present in the facts presented by TDFSI.

Whether the evidence and documents submitted adequately demonstrate these elements.