Title
Supreme Court
Philippine Leisure and Retirement Authority vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 156303
Decision Date
Dec 19, 2007
PLRA and PRAMA dispute over membership fees and MOA rescission; Supreme Court reverses CA, ruling trial court abused discretion in granting preliminary mandatory injunction.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 184343)

Background

The PLRA was established to develop the Philippines as a retirement haven, initiating programs to attract foreign retirees, particularly former Filipinos (balikbayans). In 1989, twelve principal retirees founded PRAMA to assist PLRA in its objectives. After various arrangements, including PLRA collecting membership fees for PRAMA, conflicts arose, culminating in PLRA's unilateral rescission of the MOA in December 2000, leading to PRAMA filing a complaint for specific performance against PLRA.

Trial Court Proceedings

Initially, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted PRAMA a preliminary injunction, stating that the parties had previously agreed that PLRA would collect membership fees for PRAMA. The RTC found that PLRA unilaterally terminated the MOA without prior notice, resulting in the court's intervention to protect PRAMA’s rights. Consequently, PLRA challenged this ruling in the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals denied PLRA's petition for certiorari, affirming the RTC's order which directed PLRA to comply with the reinstatement of the MOA. The appellate court held that the RTC did not abuse its discretion, emphasizing the sufficiency of evidence supporting the trial court's findings.

Contempt Proceedings and Further RTC Orders

Subsequent to the appellate decision, further complications ensued as PLRA did not comply with the RTC's orders regarding the collection and remittance of fees and reinstatement of Atty. Ramon M. Collado as a consultant. PRAMA filed motions to cite PLRA for contempt, resulting in several RTC orders emphasizing compliance with prior rulings.

Legal Issues on Appeal

PLRA filed a petition for review on certiorari, raising two primary issues: the propriety of the preliminary mandatory injunction issued by the RTC and whether the injunction could include reliefs not expressly prayed for in the complaint.

Court's Ruling on Preliminary Injunction

The Supreme Court found merit in PLRA's arguments. It ruled that the injunction issued was not in accordance with legal standards, emphasizing the necessity for a clear right that needed protection, which PRAMA failed to establish effectively. The Court clarified that while unilateral rescission of a contract can occur, such actions are subject to judicial scrutiny if contested.

Analysis of Jurisdiction

The Court determined that the preliminary injunction was improperly granted as it failed to satisfy the requirements for such relief, which include establishing a clear and unmistakable right, substantial invasion of that right, and urg

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.