RAVA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND FRABAL FISHING AND ICE PLANT CORPORATION-appellants, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HONORABLE JUDGE LUCAS P. BERSAMIN of Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 96 and WHEELS DISTRIBUTORS, INCORPORATED-appellees.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 96825
- Promulgated: 1992-07-03
- Ponente: Paras, J.
Doctrine
A defendant moving to dismiss for lack of cause of action is deemed to have hypothetically admitted all averments of the complaint; sufficiency is tested by whether, admitting the facts alleged, a valid judgment can be rendered in accordance with the prayer.
The sole object of a preliminary injunction, whether prohibitory or mandatory, is to preserve the status quo until the case on the merits can be heard; it is proper where a substantial controversy exists and acts or threats would cause irreparable injury or destroy the status quo.
Filing of a complaint within the original lease term can establish the last peaceable and uncontroverted relationship between the parties, supporting a grant of preliminary injunctive relief to maintain that relationship pending litigation.
Facts
Rava Development Corporation and Wheels Distributors, Inc. executed a lease over a parcel at No. 3, Aurora Boulevard, Quezon City effective 16 February 1983 to 15 February 1988; the complaint was filed on the morning of 15 February 1988, within the lease term.
A writ of preliminary injunction was issued enjoining defendants from ejecting the plaintiff and commanding maintenance of the status quo; plaintiff required to file a P100,000 bond and the writ to be served by the deputy sheriff.
The Court of Appeals initially granted relief annulling certain RTC orders, but on motion for reconsideration reversed its 28 March 1990 decision in a Resolution dated 8 January 1991, holding that courts cannot go beyond the allegations of the complaint when resolving a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action.
At the hearing before issuance of the injunction, Rava and Frabal failed to appear and did not submit opposition despite prior notice and their manifestation to do so.
Issues
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that courts cannot go beyond the allegations of the complaint in resolving a motion to dismiss grounded on lack of cause of action.
Whether the writ of preliminary injunction was properly issued to preserve the status quo pending full hearing on the merits.
Ruling
The petition for review on certiorari is denied for lack of merit; consequently the writ of preliminary injunction is sustained as valid.
The Court found that Rava and Frabal were not deprived of due process because a hearing was conducted and they failed to appear or file opposition; the injunction was appropriate to preserve the status quo since the complaint was filed within the lease term.
Keywords
G.R. No. 96825, petition for review on certiorari, Resolution dated January 8, 1991, CA-G.R. SP No. 18007, Decision dated March 28, 1990, motion to dismiss, lack of cause of action, contract of lease, right of first refusal, merger agreement, specific performance and damages, Civil Case No. Q-52907, Temporary Restraining Order, writ of preliminary injunction, ejectment case, status quo, rental adjustments, unreasonable and unconscionable, consignation in court, frabal