Case Summary (G.R. No. 171511)
Petitioner, Respondent, Key Dates, and Applicable Law
- Key procedural dates appearing in the record: issuance of the preliminary injunction (December 1, 1999); trial court decision dismissing the complaint and lifting the writ (February 14, 2007); subsequent trial court resolutions of March 13, 2007 and April 18, 2007; Supreme Court resolution reversing the April 18, 2007 resolution (decision rendered in 2009).
- Governing law cited in the decision: 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable because the decision date is 1990 or later), Articles 649 and 650 of the Civil Code (easement/right of way), Section 1, Rule 58 of the Revised Rules of Court (preliminary injunction), and pertinent rules on appeals (including Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) and controlling jurisprudence (e.g., Lee v. Court of Appeals; Unionbank v. Court of Appeals).
Procedural History and Trial Court Rulings
Respondent filed a complaint for a permanent right of way, injunction, and damages and obtained a preliminary injunction from the trial court enjoining the Buycos from closing the private road. After trial, Branch 39 of the Iloilo RTC dismissed the complaint by Decision dated February 14, 2007 for failure to prove the essential requisites for an easement of right of way under Articles 649 and 650 of the Civil Code, and the trial court lifted the preliminary injunction. Respondent filed a notice of appeal; petitioner filed a partial appeal as to damages. Respondent then moved to cite petitioner and his brother in contempt for allegedly closing the road on March 1, 2007 in violation of the preliminary injunction.
Contempt Proceedings and Trial Court Resolutions
By Resolution of March 13, 2007, the trial court concluded that because respondent had received his copy of the February 14 decision only on March 5, 2007 (and petitioner earlier), the decision had not yet become final and executory; therefore the preliminary injunction remained valid and petitioner’s act of closing the road constituted indirect contempt. The trial court declared petitioner and his brother in contempt. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, arguing among other points that a preliminary injunction, once quashed or lifted, ceases to exist and that indirect contempt cannot be imposed by mere motion. By Resolution dated April 18, 2007, the trial court set aside the March 13, 2007 resolution, granted petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, and ruled that contempt could not be predicated on a mere motion rather than a verified petition; the trial court also discussed whether a preliminary injunction remains valid until the decision annulling it attains finality, quoting Lee v. Court of Appeals.
Legal Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
The dispositive question presented was whether the lifting of a writ of preliminary injunction pursuant to dismissal of the main action is immediately effective and executory even though the dismissal is being appealed — i.e., does a preliminary injunction automatically dissolve upon dismissal of the action notwithstanding an appeal from that dismissal?
Legal Principles on Preliminary Injunctions
The Supreme Court reiterated settled principles appearing in the Rules and jurisprudence: a preliminary injunction is a provisional, ancillary remedy granted during the pendency of the main action for the limited purpose of preserving the status quo and protecting rights pending final adjudication; it is not an independent cause of action. The injunction is temporary and dependent upon the main action’s outcome. The Court cited Section 1, Rule 58 of the Revised Rules of Court and multiple precedents to confirm that the sole object of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending a full hearing on the merits.
Application of the Law to the Case — Effect of Dismissal on the Writ
Applying these principles, the Supreme Court held that where the main action has been decided and dismissed on the merits, the writ of preliminary injunction is deemed lifted automatically because its provisional purpose has been served and the underlying action no longer exists. The Court relied on authority such as Unionbank v. Court of Appeals to the effect that dismissal, discontinuance or nonsuit of an action in which a restraining order or temporary injunction had been granted operates as a dissolution of the restraining order or temporary injunction, regardless of whether a motion for reconsideration or appeal has been taken. The rationale is that an
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 171511)
Case Caption and Source
- Reported at 623 Phil. 596, First Division, G.R. No. 177486, decided December 21, 2009.
- Parties: Purisimo Buyco (petitioner) versus Nelson Baraquia (respondent).
- Decision authored by Justice Carpio Morales; concurrence by Chief Justice Puno (Chairperson), Justices Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Villarama, Jr.
Factual Background
- Nelson Baraquia filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City against Dominico Buyco and Clemente Buyco seeking:
- Establishment of a permanent right of way (easement of right of way),
- Injunction,
- Damages,
- Preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order to enjoin the Buycos from closing off a private road he used to access his poultry farm from the public highway.
- Dominico and Clemente Buyco died during the pendency of the case and were substituted by Purisimo Buyco (petitioner) and his brother Gonzalo.
- Branch 39 of the Iloilo RTC initially granted respondent’s application for preliminary injunction.
Trial Court Decision on the Merits (February 14, 2007)
- By Decision dated February 14, 2007, the trial court dismissed respondent’s complaint.
- Ground for dismissal: failure to establish the concurrence of the essential requisites for the establishment of an easement of right of way under Articles 649 and 650 of the Civil Code.
- Consequence: the trial court lifted the writ of preliminary injunction that had been issued.
Pleadings and Appeals Post-Decision
- Respondent filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s February 14, 2007 Decision.
- Petitioner filed a notice of partial appeal regarding the non-award of damages.
- Respondent subsequently filed a motion in the trial court to cite petitioner and his brother in contempt, alleging they had closed the subject road in violation of the preliminary injunction.
Trial Court Resolutory Action on Contempt (March 13, 2007)
- By Resolution dated March 13, 2007, the trial court noted:
- Respondent received his copy of the February 14 Decision on March 5, 2007.
- Petitioner received his copy on February 21, 2007.
- The trial court held that the February 14, 2007 Decision had not yet become final and executory.
- Ruling: the writ of preliminary injunction remained valid, efficacious and obligatory; petitioner’s act of closing the road on March 1, 2007 constituted indirect contempt of court.
- Result: the trial court declared petitioner and his brother in contempt of court.
Reconsideration and Subsequent Trial Court Resolution (April 18, 2007)
- Petitioner moved for reconsideration, arguing:
- A preliminary injunction, once quashed, ceases to exist.
- Petitioner and his brother could not be held guilty of indirect contempt by mere motion.
- By Resolution dated April 18, 2007, the trial court:
- Set aside the March 13, 2007 Resolution.
- Granted petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
- Ruled that petitioner and his brother cannot be held in contempt of court by mere motion as opposed to a verified petition.
- On the lifetime of the writ of preliminary injunction, the trial court stated its view that jurisprudence was not firmly entrenched on whether a writ remains valid until the decision annulling it attains finality and quoted from Lee v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 147191, July 27, 2006) to support the view that a preliminary injunction may subsist until finality of an appellate decision in certain circumstances.
Question Presented to the Supreme Court
- Framed as a question of law: whether the lifting of a writ of preliminary injunction due to the dismissal of the complaint is immediately executory, even if the dismissal of the complaint is pending appeal.
Supreme Court’s Legal Characterization of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction
- A writ of preliminary injunction:
- Is an order granted at any stage prior to judgment or final order requiring a party or person to refrain from particular acts (Sec. 1, Rule 58, Revised Rules of Court).
- Is a provisional remedy, adjunct to the main case, subject to the outcome of the main case.
- Is not a cause of action in itself.
- Is ancillary or auxiliary and available during the pendency of the action to preserve and protect rights and interests pending final judgment.
- Is temporary and incident to the main action; its sole object is to preserve the status quo until the merits can be heard.
- Is usually granted when there is a substantial controversy and one par