Garayblas vs Atienza GR 149493

FACTS: Petitioner was appointed by Mayor Lim as member of board of Regents representating PLM
for 6 yrs up to August 13, 2004. When Ateinza was electedted mayor of Manila, he appointed Goco
as representative effective April 26, 1999 to April 25, 2005.

Petitiner sent a letter to Mayor Atienza and pursuant to the matter, a special meeting was called and
the board members resolved that Goco be the representative.

On February 10, 2000, petitioner filed a Petition11 for Injunction with Prayer for Preliminary
Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order with Damages against respondents.to cease, desist
and/or refrain from implementing the resolution of the Board of Regents. Petition was granted and
petitioner posted a bond.

Respondents moved to dismiss the action on the ground that being corporate matters, it is the SEC
and not RTC who has jurisdiction over the case.

Such MTD was granted by the RTC. Petitioner filed MR but was dismissed contending that the
petition for injunction had become moot and academic since petitioner’s appointment as PLM
faculty member had not been renewed. The court concluded that he was not qualified to remain a
member of the Board of Regents representing the PLM faculty. Hence, this petition for certiorari
under Rule 45.

ISSUE: WON petitioners petition for injunction has become moot and academic.

RULING: NO. A review of the allegations in the petition for injunction and the reliefs prayed for
therein will readily show that petitioner had two causes of action: (1) for injunction; and (2) for
moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

By praying for injunctive relief, petitioner did not intend to correct a wrong of the past, for redress of
injury already sustained, but to prevent his ouster from membership in the Board. By his action for
injunction, petitioner sought to preserve the status quo of things, to prevent actual or threatened
acts which would violate the rules of equity and good conscience as would consequently afford him
a cause of action resulting from the failure of the law to provide for an adequate or complete relief.

As petitioner claimed in his petition, respondent Mayor Atienza’s appointment of respondent Goco
as member of the Board was illegal, and that respondents acted "with evident bad faith, with
deliberate intention to ridicule, humiliate, dishonor, embarrass and place him in a pitiful
predicament causing him untold sufferings, sleepless nights, serious anxiety, wounded feelings and
tarnished reputation as a member of the academe of good moral standing, for which he is entitled to
moral and exemplary damages." Petitioner’s cause of action for moral and exemplary damages was
for redress for injury allegedly caused by respondents’ acts.

It may be alleged by respondents that the issue of the validity of petitioner’s appointment has
become moot and academic considering that petitioner’s appointment as member of the Board of
Regents expired on August 13, 2004. However, another issue has not been so mooted, that is, the
issue of whether petitioner is entitled to moral, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees because of
his alleged illegal ouster as member of the Board of Regents. This is a substantial issue that needs to
be resolved by the trial court after trial.
URBANES VS CA

G.R. No. 117964

When URBANES, owner of Catalina Security service lost to Bolinao Security in a bidding for SSS security
services, he filed a complaint with the RTC. .

A compromise agreement was forged between 2 parties where another bidding as agreed to be held wherein
this time, JAGUAR SECURITY won the bidding.

Convinced that there was fraud and arbitrariness in the evaluation of the bids, CATALINA filed an action for
damages and injunctionbefore the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, praying for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction to: (1) prevent, restrain and enjoin the SSS from terminating CATALINA's services; and
(2) to annul the award made in favor of JAGUAR. CATALINA further prayed for an award of penal and
exemplary damages as well. such was granted and Catalina posted a bond for P100,000.

SSS filed a petition for certiorai with the CA seeking the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or a
temporary restraining order to enjoin the enforcement of the orders issued by the respondent trial court as
well as the writ of preliminary injunction.

The appellate court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the trial court from enforcing the orders
dated May 13 and 31, 1994, as well as the writ of preliminary injunction. It also ordered the dismissal of Case
No. Q-94-20557 pending before the trial court. Hence, this petiton.

ISSUE: won CA erred reversing the findings of the trial court on the main case in a certiorai proceeding
assailing an interlocutory order.

RULING: Yes. The trial court did not commit any act that was diametrically opposed to the time-honored legal
principles. The issuance of the questioned writ of preliminary injunction was well-supported by sufficient
evidence presented by the petitioner during the hearing held for that purpose. The trial court's evaluation of
the evidence presented by both contending parties led the said court to hold that justice and equity would be
better served if the status quo is preserved until a final determination of the merits of the pending case for
damages and injunction is laid down. We find nothing whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious in the trial court's
ruling.

Clearly, the Court of Appeals erred in interfering with the trial court's exercise of discretion when the former
went over the preliminary evidence with a fine-toothed comb. The rule is well-entrenched that the issuance of
the writ of preliminary injunction as an ancillary or preventive remedy to secure the right of a party in a
pending case rests upon the sound discretion of the trial court. Rule 58, Section 7 of the Rules of Court gives
generous latitude to the trial courts in this regard for the reason that conflicting claims in an application for a
provisional writ more often than not involve a factual determination which is not the function of the appellate
courts. Hence, the exercise of sound judicial discretion by the trial court in injunctive matters must not be
interfered with except when there is manifest abuse.