DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY and NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION, vs. JUDGE AMIR PUNDOGAR, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Iligan City, 12th Judicial Region, Branch III, FERNANDO JACINTO, JACINTO STEEL, INC., and ILIGAN INTEGRATED…
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 96921
- Promulgated: 1993-01-29
- Ponente: Romero, J.
Doctrine
A writ of preliminary injunction is an equitable remedy requiring the applicant to show a clear case and to come to court with clean hands.
Identity of causes of action is determined by whether the same evidence would support both actions, not merely by the caption or form of the pleadings (Sec. 1, Rule 7 issue).
A lower court's assumption of jurisdiction may constitute grave abuse of discretion warranting corrective relief by this Court.
Facts
The Court reiterates that an applicant for a writ of preliminary injunction must establish a clear case and come with clean hands; IISMI failed both requirements on the record.
Two related actions are at issue: Civil Case No. 1701 (captioned as injunction) and Civil Case No. 111-1549 (caption did not state title as required by Sec. 1, Rule 7), but identity of causes depends on whether the same evidence supports both.
Petitioners challenged the lower court's exercise of jurisdiction and alleged additional factual developments (post-filing events, foreclosure matters, and developments after the EDSA Revolution).
DBP sought to terminate OSG representation and have its own Legal Department act as counsel pursuant to Section 12 of E.O. 81; the Court granted this prayer in the circumstances.
Issues
Whether, in the name of economic development, the Government can act unfairly and arbitrarily and thereby deny a party with a legitimate grievance a remedy in law.
Whether an applicant for a preliminary injunction must establish a clear case and come to court with clean hands to be entitled to the writ.
Whether the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion in taking jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 111-1549.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED: the Temporary Restraining Order issued on 7 February 1991 is made PERMANENT and Civil Case No. 111-1549 is ORDERED DISMISSED; the TRO issued on 9 May 1992 is DISSOLVED.
The Court allowed DBP to terminate OSG representation and to have its Legal Department act as counsel under the circumstances presented.
Keywords
G.R. No. 96921, special civil action for certiorari, motion to dismiss, motion for reconsideration, Republic Act No. 1396, foreclosure, preliminary injunction, Civil Case No. 1701, non-suability of the State, Proclamation 1081, martial law, Letters of Instructions, mismanagement of financial affairs, corporate malpractices, piercing the corporate veil, equity and non-equity funds, real and chattel mortgages, iismi, ferro, jacintos