G.R. No. 203335 - Disini, Jr. vs. Secretary of Justice

Sy Yong Hu & Sons is a partnership registered with the SEC on March 29, 1962, composed of Sy Yong Hu and his sons: Jose Sy (managing partner), Jayme Sy, Marciano Sy, Willie Sy, Vicente Sy, and Jesus Sy.
The Amended Articles of Partnership reflect the respective capital contributions of each partner.
Several partners died during the succeeding years: Sy Yong Hu (May 18, 1978), Jose Sy (August 12, 1978), Vicente Sy (December 30, 1979), and Marciano Sy (August 7, 1987).

The partnership owns valuable assets, including sugar cane lands and commercial lots in Bacolod City.
In September 1977, during the lifetime of all partners, Keng Sian filed Civil Case No. 13388 against the partnership and individual partners, claiming co-ownership of properties with Sy Yong Hu and demanding an accounting and reconveyance of her alleged half-share.
Defendants denied her claim, asserting that she was merely a house helper and had no rights to the partnership properties.

On September 20, 1978, Marciano Sy filed a petition for declaratory relief to be appointed managing partner, replacing the deceased Jose Sy.
Vicente Sy, Jesus Sy, and Jaime Sy answered, seeking dissolution and appointment of Vicente Sy as managing partner.
Hearing Officer Emmanuel Sison dismissed the petition but dissolved the partnership and appointed Jesus Sy as manager for winding up.
The SEC en banc affirmed this decision on June 8, 1982 (Abello decision), clarifying:

The partnership dissolution was by majority will, not automatic by death of a partner.
Jesus Sy was appointed managing partner only to manage liquidation.
Both parties were required to submit partition plans within 90 days.
The case was remanded for evaluation and approval of accounting and partition.

On December 2, 1986, Hearing Officer Sison approved a partial partition of certain assets; this was appealed by respondents.

In 1982, the children of Keng Sian filed SEC Case No. 2338 to revoke the partnership’s registration and revert assets to the estate of Sy Yong Hu.
This was dismissed by Hearing Officer Espejo on January 11, 1984, with no appeal.
The children sought to intervene in SEC Case No. 1648 but were denied intervention on May 9, 1985, with no appeal from the order.
The Regional Trial Court appointed Felix Ferrer as Special Administrator for the estate of Sy Yong Hu in Civil Case No. 13388.
On August 30, 1985, he moved to intervene in the SEC proceedings, which was denied on May 9, 1986.
The SEC en banc reversed the denial of intervention on appeal (Sulit decision), allowing intervention and remanding for further proceedings on partition and distribution, noting the dissolution order was final and executory.

Hearing Officer Felipe Tongco succeeded Hearing Officer Sison; parties agreed no disposition would be made of partnership assets during pendency of Civil Case No. 903.
On October 5, 1988, Tongco placed the partnership under a receivership committee to preserve assets during the trial’s pendency (Tongco Order).
Petitioners appealed to the SEC en banc, which affirmed Tongco's Order on January 16, 1989 (Lopez Order).
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
On January 15, 1990, the Court of Appeals set aside Tongco and Lopez Orders and ordered the partition and distribution of partnership properties.
Private respondents moved for reconsideration; on June 27, 1990, the Court of Appeals reversed itself and remanded the case to the SEC for receivership committee formation.

In June 1988, Sy Yong Hu & Sons applied for and obtained a building permit (No. 4936) to rebuild its business building destroyed by fire.
Reconstruction began, and by January 1989, the building was occupied by petitioners and other occupants, successors or relatives of deceased partners.
The intestate estate wrote the City Engineer objecting to Jesus Sy’s authority to apply for permits, requesting revocation of the building permit, relying on the receivership order.
The City Engineer requested proof of authority from Jesus Sy, withholding an occupancy permit.
The intestate estate filed a Petition for Mandamus with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction to compel the City Engineer to enforce the Building Code and padlock the building (Civil Case No. 5326).
The petition was granted ex parte on April 19, 1989, then a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction was issued on May 4, 1989.
Petitioners, not being parties, later intervened and opposed the injunction. The trial court initially allowed intervention but later rescinded it and struck pleadings supporting intervention.
On January 24, 1991, the trial court modified the injunction order, instructing the City Engineer to stop work, revoke building permits, and bar occupancy pending final resolution.
The City Engineer served notice revoking the building permit and ordering stoppage.
Petitioners sought relief from the Court of Appeals, which issued a temporary restraining order but later denied the petition on May 31, 1991.

G.R. No. 94285 questioned the Court of Appeals’ reversal regarding receivership and suspension of asset partition.
G.R. No. 100313 questioned the Court of Appeals’ denial of certiorari relating to the building permit revocation and preliminary injunction, including procedural due process violations.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reinstating the receivership order and suspending the partition and distribution of partnership assets despite the earlier final and executory dissolution order.
Whether the appointment of a receivership committee by the SEC was proper and within jurisdiction.

Whether the trial court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction and revoking the building permit.
Whether the trial court erred in disallowing petitioners to intervene in Civil Case No. 5326, thereby violating their right to due process.
Whether the trial court erred in issuing and ordering enforcement of the preliminary injunction despite the absence of an injunction bond.