G.R. No. 240230 - People vs. Divinagracia, Jr. y Dornila

Sumifru (Philippines) Corporation (Petitioner) is a domestic corporation engaged in the production and export of Cavendish bananas, with principal office in Davao City. It is the surviving corporation of a merger involving several corporations, including Davao Fruits Corporation (DFC).
The respondents are spouses Danilo and Cerina Cereao (Spouses Cereao), owners of titled lands in Tamayong, Calinan District, Davao City, covering a total area of 56,901 square meters.
Sumifru (formerly DFC) entered into several growership agreements with the spouses Cereao, namely:

Production and Purchase Agreement (PPA) dated 29 November 1999 (term: 22 July 1999 to 21 July 2009) covering 9,176 sq. m.
Growers Exclusive Production and Sales Agreements (GEPASA) dated 10 January 2002, 7 January 2002, and 9 December 2002 covering periods from 2000 to 2015, collectively covering 47,725 sq. m.

Under these agreements, the spouses Cereao agreed to sell and deliver exclusively to Sumifru the bananas produced from the contract areas complying with volume and quality specifications.

On 4 August 2010, Sumifru filed a Complaint for Injunction and Specific Performance with Application for Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order before the RTC, Branch 15, Davao City, against the spouses Cereao.
Sumifru alleged that starting February 2007, the spouses Cereao violated the agreements by harvesting bananas without consent, packing in unauthorized boxes, and selling to buyers other than Sumifru.
Despite demands, the spouses Cereao allegedly refused to comply. Sumifru sought a writ of preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction to:

During the preliminary injunction hearing, parties filed position papers. On 29 September 2010, the spouses Cereao filed an Answer alleging termination of the contracts due to Sumifru's alleged gross violations and serious breach.

RTC denied Sumifru's application for a preliminary injunction on 5 October 2010, finding lack of urgency and that the issuance of the injunction would effectively decide the main case.
Sumifru's motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC on 11 November 2010.
Sumifru filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA, in its Decision dated 20 May 2014, affirmed the RTC Orders, denying the petition for injunctive relief on the basis that Sumifru failed to establish all requisites for a preliminary injunction.
The CA denied Sumifru's motion for reconsideration on 5 May 2015, leading to the present petition before the Supreme Court.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that Sumifru's right to a writ of preliminary injunction was put in serious doubt by respondents' claim of extra-judicial termination of the contracts.
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in ruling that the grant of a writ of preliminary injunction would have the effect of disposing of the main case, considering the objective of the injunction was merely to preserve the status quo.
Whether the continuing violation of the exclusive contract by the respondents would cause grave and irreparable damage to Sumifru.
Whether the supposed grave and irreparable damage allegedly suffered by Sumifru cannot be compensated by damages.