5/26/2017 G.R.No.

157315

RepublicofthePhilippines
SupremeCourt
Manila

THIRDDIVISION
CITYGOVERNMENTOF G.R.No.157315
BUTUANandCITYMAYOR
LEONIDESTHERESAB.
PLAZA,thelatterinher Present:
personalcapacityandas CARPIOMORALES,Chairperson,
representativeof BRION,
hercodefendant, BERSAMIN,
Petitioners, VILLARAMA,JR.,and
ARANALSERENO,JJ.

versus


CONSOLIDATED
BROADCASTINGSYSTEM
(CBS),INC.,doingbusiness
underthenameandstyleDXBR
BomboRadyo Promulgated:
Butuan,representedbyits
Manager,NorbertoP.
Pagaspas,andHON.
ROSARITOF.DABALOS, December1,2010
PRESIDINGJUDGE,RTC,
BRANCH2,OFAGUSAN
DELNORTEANDBUTUAN
CITY,
Respondents.
xx

DECISION


BERSAMIN,J.:


PetitionersCityGovernmentofButuanandCityMayorLeonidesTheresaB.Plaza(petitioners)
appealtheadversedecisiondatedOctober28,2002(dismissingtheirpetitionforcertiorariand
prohibitiontochallengethegrantbythetrialjudgeoftheapplicationforawritofpreliminary

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/157315.htm 1/15
5/26/2017 G.R.No.157315

[1]
injunctionafterreconsideringhisearlierselfinhibition), andtheresolutiondatedJanuary29,
2003 (denying their motion for reconsideration), both promulgated by the Court of Appeals
(CA)inC.A.G.R.SPNo.69729entitledCityGovernmentofButuanandCityMayorLeonides
TheresaB.Plaza,thelatterinherpersonalcapacityandasrepresentativeofhercodefendantv.
ConsolidatedBroadcastingSystem(CBS),Inc.,doingbusinessunderthenameandstyleDXBR
Bombo Radyo Butuan, represented by its Manager, Norberto P. Pagaspas, and the Hon.
RosaritoF.Dabalos,PresidingJudge,RTC,Branch2,ofAgusandelNorteandButuanCity.

[2]
Antecedents

In February, 2002, City Mayor Plaza (Mayor Plaza) wrote to the Sangguniang Panlungsod of
ButuanCitytosolicititssupportforherdecisiontodenytheapplicationformayorspermitof
respondent Bombo Radyo/Consolidated Broadcasting System (CBS), and to eventually close
down CBSs radio station. She justified her decision by claiming that CBSs operating its
broadcastingbusinesswithintheArujivilleSubdivision,aresidentialarea,hadviolatedtheCitys
zoningordinance.Herletterpertinentlyreads:

In 1994, Bombo Radyo/Consolidated Broadcasting System manifested their intention to
operate on their current site at Arujiville Subdivision which is a residential area. They were
informed that they cannot situate their business in the area as it violates our zoning ordinance.
However,theyhavepleadedandwasagreeabletooperateintheareabyvirtueofaTemporary
UsePermit(TUP)xxx.

TheTUPallowedthemtooperateintheareabutonlyforaverylimitedperiod.Asamatter
offact,theTUPwasgoodonlyforoneyear,whichcanberenewedeveryyearforamaximumof
five (5) years or until 1999. Thus, right from the beginning they have been informed and
forewarnedthattheycannotoperateintheareaforeverandthattheyhavetorelocatetoaproper
area.
Bombo Radyo renewed its TUP only in 1995 and 1996. They have failed to renew their
TUPuptotoday.

ThisofficehasreceivednumerouscomplaintsagainstBomboRadyoforviolationofprivate
rights, inciting people to go rise against the government, malicious imputations, insinuations
againstpeoplenotoftheirliking,falseorfabricatednews,etc.Thelistissolongtoenumerate.
Copiesofthepetitions,manifestosfromvariousgroupsisheretoattachedforyourperusal.

Thus, for violation of the city zoning ordinance, the expiration of their TUP, which was
neverrenewedsince1997,failuretosecureECCandthenumerouscomplaintsagainstthestation
oftheresidentswithintheimmediatevicinityoftheirpremisesandthethreattheyarecausingto
thepeaceandorderoftheCity,Ihavedecidedtodenytheirapplicationforamayor'spermitand
thereaftertoclosetheradiostation.

In view of the foregoing premises, I am forwarding this matter to the Sangguniang
Panlungsodtosolicityourresolutionofsupportonthematter.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/157315.htm 2/15
5/26/2017 G.R.No.157315

Thisisnotadecisioncalculatedtodeprived(sic)RadioBomboofitsfreedomofspeechor
expression. This is just a simply matter of whether or not Radyo Bombo has complied with
existinglawsandordinances.

Thereupon, the Sangguninang Panlungsod adopted Resolution0572002 to strongly
support the decision of the City Mayor to deny the application of Consolidated Broadcasting
SystemDevelopmentCorporation(BomboRadyoButuan)foraMayorsPermitandthereafter
[3]
closetheradiostation.

OnFebruary18,2002,theCityslicensingofficerservedonCBSsstationmanagerafinal/last
notice of violation and demand to cease and desist illegal operation, with a warning that he
wouldrecommendtheclosureofitsbusinessincaseofnoncompliance.

On February 19, 2002, CBS and its manager, Norberto Pagaspas, filed a complaint for
prohibition, mandamus, and damages against the petitioners in the Regional Trial Court in
[4]
Butuan City (RTC), with prayer for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and writ of
preliminaryinjunctiontorestrainthepetitionersfromclosingitsstation,orfromdisturbingand
preventing its business operations. The case, docketed as Civil Case No. 5193, was raffled to
Branch2,presidedbyJudgeRosaritoP.Dabalos.

OnFebruary20,2002,JudgeDabalosvoluntarilyinhibitedanddirectedthereturnofCivilCase
[5]
No. 5193 to the Office of the Clerk of Court for reraffle. He cited the circumstances that
mightaffecthisobjectivityandimpartialityinresolvingthecontroversyashisjustification,to
wit:

xxx
a) That the undersigned was the object of its (plaintiff's) attacks and criticism
whicharejudgmentalandnotinquisitorialinthecommentsovertheair
b) That the undersigned was shouted at disrespectfully by one of plaintiff's
reporters/newsgatherersinthevicinityoftheHallofJustice

c) That plaintiff's commentaries are making pronouncements on legal matters,
substantiveandprocedural,basedonitsperceptionandnotonlaws

d) That in its commentaries in attacking public officials as well as private
individuals,wordswhicharedisrespectfulandindecentareused.

andtheneteffectandresultofitscommentariesovertheaircausesconfusiononthemindsofthe
public,includingtheyoungthatthecourtandgovernmentofficesandpublicofficialswilllose
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/157315.htm 3/15
5/26/2017 G.R.No.157315

theircredibilityandrespectwhichareduethem.

The court is aware of press freedom is enshrined in our constitution but such freedom
shouldnotbeabusedbecauseineveryrightthereisaconcomitantobligation.

Letthereforethiscasebereturnedimmediatelytotheoffice[ofthe]ClerkofCourtVIfor
reraffling.

SOORDERED.

Onthesameday,JudgeVictorTomaneng,PresidingJudgeofBranch33,issuedanorder
also inhibiting himself from handling Civil Case No. 5193, and in his capacity as Vice
ExecutiveJudge(inlieuofExecutiveJudgeCiprianoB.Alvizo,Jr.,thenonsickleave)directed
[6]
theassignmentofCivilCaseNo.5193toBranch5withoutraffle, viz:

xxxConsideringthattheExecutiveJudgeHon.CiprianoB.Alvizo,thePresidingJudgeof
RTCBranch4andActingDesignatePresidingJudgeofRTCBranch3,butwhoisnowinCebu
Cityformedicaltreatment,itwouldbeimpracticaltoincludehiscourtsinthererafflingofcases
forthereasonthatthecaseisforprohibition,mandamus,injunction,etc.,thatneedsimmediate
action.ThehereinViceExecutiveJudgewhoisthePresidingJudgeofRTCBranch33,couldnot
also act on this case on the ground of 'delicadeza' considering that defendant Hon. Mayor
LeonidesTheresaB.Plazaishis'kumadre'plusthefactthatbeforebecomingjudgehewasthe
legalcounseloftheLDPpartyhereinButuanCity,intheelectionof1992and1995,whichisthe
political party of the Plazas. RTCBranch 1, being the exclusive Family Court cannot also be
includedinanyraffle.

Inviewoftheforegoing,andonthegroundofexpediency,theClerkofCourtisorderedto
send this case to RTCBranch 5, without raffle anymore, it being the only practical available
courtinthisjurisdictionasofthismoment.

Civil Case No. 5193 was forwarded to Branch 5, presided by Judge Augustus L. Calo, who
recusedbecausehiswifehadbeenrecentlyappointedbyMayorPlazatotheCitysLegalOffice.
Judge Calo ordered the immediate return of the case to the Clerk of Court for forwarding to
ViceExecutiveJudgeTomaneng.

Withoutanyotherjudgetohandlethecase,JudgeTomanengformallyreturnedCivilCaseNo.
5193 to Judge Dabalos, stating in his letter that Judge Dabalos reason for inhibition did not
amounttoaplausiblegroundtoinhibit.JudgeTomanenginstructedJudgeDabalostohearthe
[7]
caseunlesstheSupremeCourtapprovedtheinhibition.

[8]
OnFebruary21,2002,JudgeTomanengissuedaTRO, towit:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/157315.htm 4/15
5/26/2017 G.R.No.157315

TheCourtbelievesthatthereisaneedtomaintainthestatusquountilalltheotherissuesin
the complaint shall have been duly heard and determined without necessarily implying that
plaintiff is entitled to the prayers for injunction.The Court hereby resolves in the meantime to
grantatemporaryrestrainingorder.

WHEREFORE, defendants City Gov't of Butuan and City Mayor Leonides Theresa B.
Plaza, their attorneys, agents, employees, police authorities and/or any person acting upon the
Mayors order and instruction under her authority are hereby enjoined to cease, desist and to
refrain from closing or padlocking RADYO BOMBO or from preventing, disturbing, or
molesting its business operations, including but not limited to the use and operation of its
building,structuresandbroadcastingfacilities,andtheingressoregressofitsemployeestherein.

AsthisCourtcannotissueaseventytwo(72)hourTemporaryRestrainingOrderbecauseof
theincomingdelayonMonday,February25,2002,atemporaryrestrainingorderisherebyissued
effective for twenty (20) days from issuance (Sec. 5, Rule 58, 1997 Revised Rules on Civil
Procedure).

Meanwhile, let this case be set for summary hearing on March 11, 2002 at 8:30 in the
morningtoresolvethependingapplicationforinjunctionandforthedefendantstoshowcause
whythesameshallnotbegranted.

ITISSOORDERED.

OnFebruary25,2002,thepetitionersfiledanurgentmotiontoliftordissolvetemporary
restrainingorderinBranch2(salaofJudgeDabalos).
OnFebruary26,2002, Judge Dabalos referred his order of inhibition in Civil Case No.
5193totheCourtAdministratorforconsideration,witharequestforthedesignationofanother
[9]
JudgenotstationedinButuanCityandAgusandelNortetohandlethecase.

Consequently,CBSrequestedtheCourttodesignateanotherjudgetohearitsapplicationforthe
issuanceofawritofpreliminaryinjunction,thehearingofwhichJudgeTomanenghadseton
[10]
March11,2002.

In the meanwhile, or on March 8, 2002, the petitioners filed their answer to the complaint,
alleging affirmative and special defenses and praying for the dismissal of the complaint, the
liftingoftheTRO,thedenialoftheprayerforpreliminaryinjunction,andthegrantingoftheir
counterclaimsformoralandexemplarydamages,attorneysfees,andlitigationexpenses.

During the hearing on March 11, 2002 of CBSs application for the issuance of a writ of
preliminaryinjunction,atwhichthepetitionersandtheircounseldidnotappear,CBSscounsel
manifestedthathewasdesistingfromhisearlierrequestwiththeCourtforthedesignationof
anotherjudgetohearCivilCaseNo.5193.JudgeDabalosnotedthemanifestationbutresetthe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/157315.htm 5/15
5/26/2017 G.R.No.157315

hearingoftheapplicationforpreliminaryinjunctiononMarch12,2002,togivethepetitioners
anopportunitytoshowcausewhythewritprayedforshouldnotissue.Forthepurposeofthe
[11]
resetting,JudgeDabaloscausedanoticeofhearingtobeservedonthepetitioners.

Uponreceiptofthenoticeofhearing,thepetitionersmovedtoquashthenoticeandprayedthat
the TRO be lifted, insisting that Judge Dabalos had already lost his authority to act on Civil
[12]
CaseNo.5193byvirtueofhisinhibition.

Nonetheless, Civil Case No. 5193 was called on March 12, 2002. The parties and their
respective counsel appeared. At the close of the proceedings on that date, Judge Dabalos
[13]
grantedCBSsprayerforawritofpreliminaryinjunction, towit:

WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoingasthedefendantsdidnotintroduceanyevidence
inspiteoftheorderoftheCourttoshowcausewhynowritofpreliminaryinjunctionbeissued
andtherepeateddirectiveofthecourtinopencourtforthedefendantstopresentevidencewhich
the defendants firmly refused to do so on flimsy grounds, the Court resolves to issue a writ of
preliminaryinjunctionasthecomplaintunderoathallegesthatplaintiffisagranteeofafranchise
fromtheCongressofthePhilippinesandtheactthreatenedtobecommittedbythedefendants
curtailtheconstitutionalrightoffreedomofspeechoftheplaintiffwhichtheCourtfindsthatit
shouldbelookedinto,thedefendants'refusaltocontrovertsuchallegationsbyevidencedeprived
theCourt[of]thechancetobeguidedbysuchevidencetoactaccordinglythatitleftthecourtno
alternative but to grant the writ prayed for, the City Government of Butuan and City Mayor
Leonides Theresa B. Plaza, their attorneys, agents, employees, police authorities and/or any
personactingupontheMayor'sorderorinstructionsorunderherauthorityareherebyenjoinedto
ceaseanddesistandtorefrainfromclosingorpadlockingRADYOBOMBOorfrompreventing,
disturbingormolestingitsbusinessoperations,includingbutnotlimitedtotheuseandoperation
of its building, structures, broadcasting facilities and the ingress or egress of its employees
therein upon plaintiff's putting up a bond in the amount of P200,000.00 duly approved by this
courtwhichinjunctionbondshallbeexecutedinfavorofthedefendantstoanswerforwhatever
damageswhichthedefendantsmaysustaininconnectionwithorarisingfromtheissuanceofthis
writif,afterallthecourtwillfinallyadjudgethatplaintiffisnotentitledthereto.

Thisorderiswithoutprejudicetothefindingsofthecourtafteraformalhearingorafull
blowntrial.

FurnishcopiesofthisordertotheHon.SupremeCourtandtheHon.CourtAdministrator.

[14]
SOORDERED.

FollowingCBSspostingofP200,000.00astherequiredinjunctionbond,Branch2issued
[15]
the writ of preliminary injunction on March 15, 2002, commanding and directing the
provincialsheriffto:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/157315.htm 6/15
5/26/2017 G.R.No.157315

xxx forthwith enjoin the City Government of Butuan and the Hon. City Mayor Leonides
TheresaB.Plaza,theirattorneys,agents,employees,policeauthoritiesand/oranypersonacting
upon the mayor's order or instruction or under her authority to cease and desist and to refrain
from closing or padlocking RADIO BOMBO or from preventing disturbing or molesting its
business operations, including the use and operation of its building, structures, broadcasting
facilitiesandtheingress and egress of its employees therein. Copies of the writofpreliminary
injunction,bondandotherpertinentdocumentstheretobeservedonthedefendantsandthereafter
make a return of your service of this writ within the period required by law and the Rules of
Court.

Thus, the petitioners commenced in the CA a special civil action for certiorari and
prohibition(withprayerforTROorwritofpreliminaryinjunction).


TheCAdismissedthepetitionforcertiorariandprohibitionuponafindingthatJudgeDabalos
had committed no grave abuse of discretion in acting upon CBSs application for preliminary
injunction, given the peculiar circumstances surrounding the raffling and assignment of Civil
CaseNo.5193,andtheurgentneedtoresolvetheapplicationforpreliminaryinjunctiondueto
the expiration of Judge Tomanengs TRO by March 13, 2002. The CA held that the writ of
preliminary injunction had properly issued, because the petitioners had threatened to defeat
CBSsexistingfranchisetooperateitsradiostationinButuanCitybynotissuingthepermitfor
itsbroadcastbusiness.

Issues


[16]
Hence,thisappealviapetitionforreviewoncertiorari,withthepetitionerscontendingthat:

I. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT RESPONDENT JUDGE
ROSARITOF.DABALOSACTEDWITHGRAVEABUSEOFDISCRETIONWHEN,ON
MARCH 12, 2002, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT NOTICE TO PETITIONERS, HE AGAIN
TOOK COGNIZANCE OF AND REASSUMED JURISDICTION OVER CIVIL CASE
NO. 5193 AFTER HE HAD ALREADY EFFECTIVELY INHIBITED HIMSELF FROM
HEARING THE SAME IN TWO EARLIER ORDERS HE HAD ISSUED DATED
FEBRUARY20ANDFEBRUARY26,2002RESPECTIVELY.

II. ASSUMING THAT RESPONDENT JUDGE ROSARITO DABALOS COULD VALIDLY
REASSUMEJURISDICTIONOVERCIVILCASENO.5193AFTERHEHADEARLIER
ISSUED TWO ORDERS VOLUNTARILY INHIBITING HIMSELF FROM HEARING
SAID CASE, THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT
RESPONDENTCOURTACTEDWITHGRAVEABUSEOFDISCRETIONINISSUING
A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WITHOUT REQUIRING PRIVATE

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/157315.htm 7/15
5/26/2017 G.R.No.157315

RESPONDENT TO PRESENT EVIDENCE TO SHOW WHETHER SAID PRIVATE

RESPONDENTHASACLEARRIGHTTHERETO.


Ruling


The appeal lacks merit. We find that the CA did not commit any error in upholding the
questionedordersoftheRTC.


I
JudgeDabaloslawfullyreassumed
jurisdictionoverCivilCaseNo.5193

Initsdecision,theCAruledthatJudgeDabalosdidnotgravelyabusehisdiscretioninre
assuming jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 5193 in the light of the obtaining circumstances
[17]
cogentlysetforthinitsassaileddecision,towit:

Seemingly,petitionerslostsightoftherealitythataftertherespondentjudgeissuedhisorderof
inhibitionanddirectedthereturnofthecasetotheOfficeoftheClerkofCourtforreraffleto
anotherjudge,ViceExecutiveJudgeVictorA.Tomaneng,notingthatthereisnootherjudgeto
handle the case, directed the return thereof to the public respondent in view of the extreme
urgencyofthepreliminaryreliefthereinprayedfor.Underthecircumstancesthenobtaining,the
respondentjudgecoulddonolessbuttoactthereon.Soitisthatheproceededwiththescheduled
hearingontheapplicationforpreliminaryinjunctiononMarch11,2002andthereafterresetitfor
continuationthefollowingdaytoaffordthepetitionersanopportunitytoopposetheapplication
andshowcausewhythewritprayedforshouldnotissue.Theurgencyoftheactiondemandedof
therespondentjudgeisfurtheraccentuatedbythefactthattheTROissuedbyJudgeTomaneng
was then about to expire on March 13, 2002, not to mention the circumstance that Executive
Judge Cipriano B. Alvizo, Jr., who happened to be around, advised the respondent judge to
resolvetheissuestothebestofhisdiscretion.xxx

Thepetitionersdisagree,andinsistthatJudgeDabaloslosttheauthoritytoactuponCBSs
application for preliminary injunction by virtue of his prior selfinhibition from hearing Civil
CaseNo.5193.
Wecannotsustainthepetitionersinsistence.

Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, which contains the rule on inhibition and
disqualificationofjudges,states:

Section1. Disqualification of judges. No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in
whichhe,orhiswifeorchild,ispecuniarilyinterestedasheir,legatee,creditororotherwise,orin
which he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/157315.htm 8/15
5/26/2017 G.R.No.157315

counselwithinthefourthdegree,computedaccordingtotherulesofcivillaw,orinwhichhehas
been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he has presided in any
inferiorcourtwhenhisrulingordecisionisthesubjectofreview,withoutthewrittenconsentof
allpartiesininterest,signedbythemandenteredupontherecord.

A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a
case,forjustandvalidreasonsotherthanthosementionedabove.

The selfinhibition of Judge Dabalos was one taken in accordance with the second
paragraphofSection1.Ourresolutionhereinturns,therefore,ontheproperinterpretationand
applicationofthesecondparagraph.

The second paragraph of Section 1 (unlike the first paragraph) does not expressly
enumeratethespecificgroundsforinhibition.Thismeansthatthedeterminationofthegrounds
islefttothesounddiscretionofthejudge,whomustdiscernwithonlyhisorherconscienceas
guide on what may be just and valid reasons for selfinhibition. The vesting of discretion
necessarilyproceedsfromtherealitythattheremaybemanyanddifferentgroundsforajudge
torecusefromacase,andsuchgroundscannotallbecataloguedintheRulesofCourt.Thusdid
[18]
theCourtcogentlypointoutinGutangv.CourtofAppeals:

xxx The import of the rule on the voluntary inhibition of judges is that the decision on
whetherornottoinhibitislefttothesounddiscretionandconscienceofthetrialjudgebasedon
his rational and logical assessment of the circumstances prevailing in the case brought before
him.ItmakescleartotheoccupantsoftheBenchthatoutsideofpecuniaryinterest,relationship
orpreviousparticipationinthematterthatcallsforadjudication,theremightbeothercausesthat
could conceivably erode the trait of objectivity, thus calling for inhibition. That is to betray a
senseofrealism,forthefactorsthatleadtopreferenceorpredilectionsaremanyandvaried.


Inhiscase,JudgeDabalosclearlydiscernedafterthereturnofCivilCaseNo.5193tohim
bytheViceExecutiveJudgethathisselfdoubtabouthisabilitytodispensejusticeinCivilCase
No.5193generatedbytheairingofcriticismsagainsthimandotherpublicofficialsbyCBSs
commentatorsandreporterswouldnotultimatelyaffecthisobjectivityandjudgment.Suchre
assessment of the ground for his selfinhibition, absent a showing of any malice or other
impropermotiveonhispart,couldnotbeassailedastheproductofanunsoundexerciseofhis
discretion. That,itseemstous,eventhepetitionersconceded,theirobjectionbeingbasedonly
onwhetherhecouldstillreassumejurisdictionofCivilCaseNo.5193.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/157315.htm 9/15
5/26/2017 G.R.No.157315

We hold that although a trial judge who voluntarily inhibits loses jurisdiction to hear a
[19]
case, heorshemaydecidetoreconsidertheselfinhibitionandreassumejurisdictionaftera
reassessmentofthecircumstancesgivingcausetotheinhibition.Thediscretiontoreconsider
acknowledges that the trial judge is in the better position to determine the issue of inhibition,
andareviewingtribunalwillnotdisturbtheexerciseofthatdiscretionexceptuponaclearand
[20]
strong finding of arbitrariness or whimsicality. Thus, Judge Dabalos reassumption of
jurisdictionwaslegallytenable,havingcomefromhisseizingtheopportunitytoreassessthe
circumstances impelling his selfinhibition upon being faced with the urgent need to hear and
resolveCBSsapplicationforpreliminaryinjunction.Suchactionwascommendableonhispart,
giventhattheseriesofselfinhibitionsbytheotherRTCJudgeshadleftnocompetentjudgein
thestationtohearandresolvetheapplication.ItcanevenberightlysaidthatarefusalbyJudge
Dabalostoreassessandreconsidermighthavenegatedhissacredandsworndutyasajudgeto
dispensejustice.

In this connection, the urgency for the RTC to hear and resolve the application for
preliminary injunction factually existed. In fact, CBS had communicated it to the Court in its
[21]
letterdatedMarch5,2002, towit:

IfnotforthetemporaryrestrainingorderissuedonFebruary21,2002bytheHonorableJudge
VICTORA.TOMANENG,ViceExecutiveJudgeandPresidingJudgeofBranch33ofsaidcourt
xxx violent confrontations would have continued between supporters of plaintiff RADIO
BOMBO BUTUAN, on the one hand, and the loyalists of City Mayor LEONIDES THERESA
PLAZA (including some city employees) led by the Mayor herself and her husband, former
MayorDEMOCRITOPLAZAII,ontheotherhand.
xxx
As set forth in the temporary restraining order, the hearing on the application for a writ of
preliminaryinjunctionissetonMonday,March11,2002becausethetwentydaylifetimeofthe
temporaryrestrainingorderwouldexpireonMarch13,2002.Arepeatoftheviolentscenarioof
February 21 may occur unless the application is heard as scheduled by a Regional Trial Court
Judgewhohadnotinhibitedhimself.xxx
Verily, Judge Dabalos decision to hear the application for preliminary injunction pending the
Courts resolution of the query on whether or not another Judge sitting outside the City of
Butuan should take cognizance of Civil Case No. 5193 did not constitute or equate to
arbitrariness or whimsicality. He had reasonable grounds to do so in the context of the tight
circumstancesthathaddevelopedinCivilCaseNo.5193followinghisselfinhibition.Surely,
hisdecisiontoreconsiderdidnotproceedfrompassionorwhim,butfromhisfaithfuladherence
tohissolemnoathtodojusticetoeveryman.Hetherebyneitherviolatedanylaworcanonof
judicialconduct,norabusedhisjuridicalauthority.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/157315.htm 10/15
5/26/2017 G.R.No.157315

II.
PetitionerstoadduceevidenceaftergrantingofTRO


The petitioners submit that Judge Dabalos improperly resolved CBSs application for
preliminaryinjunctionbynotfirstrequiringtheapplicanttoadduceevidenceinsupportofthe
application.

Wedonotagreewiththepetitioners.

Apreliminaryinjunctionisanordergrantedatanystageofanactionorproceedingprior
tothejudgmentorfinalorderrequiringapartyoracourt,anagency,orapersontorefrainfrom
[22]
aparticularaparticularactoracts. Itmayalsorequiretheperformanceofaparticularactor
[23]
acts,inwhichcaseitisknownasapreliminarymandatoryinjunction. Thus,aprohibitory
injunction is one that commands a party to refrain from doing a particular act, while a
mandatoryinjunctioncommandstheperformanceofsomepositiveacttocorrectawronginthe
[24]
past.

Aswithallequitableremedies,injunctionmustbeissuedonlyattheinstanceofaparty
[25]
whopossessessufficientinterestinortitletotherightorthepropertysoughttobeprotected.
It is proper only when the applicant appears to be entitled to the relief demanded in the
[26] [27]
complaint, which must aver the existence of the right and the violation of the right, or
whoseavermentsmustintheminimumconstituteaprimafacieshowingofarighttothefinal
[28]
reliefsought. Accordingly,theconditionsfortheissuanceoftheinjunctivewritare:(a)that
therighttobeprotectedexistsprimafacie(b)thattheactsoughttobeenjoinedisviolativeof
thatrightand(c)thatthereisanurgentandparamountnecessityforthewrittopreventserious
damage. An injunction will not issue to protect a right not inesse, or a right which is merely
contingent and may never arise or to restrain an act which does not give rise to a cause of
[29]
action or to prevent the perpetration of an act prohibited by statute. Indeed, a right, to be
protectedbyinjunction,meansarightclearlyfoundedonorgrantedbylaworisenforceableas
[30]
amatteroflaw.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/157315.htm 11/15
5/26/2017 G.R.No.157315

While it is true that CBS was not required to present evidence to prove its entitlement to the
injunctivewrit,thewritwasnonethelessproperlygrantedonthebasisoftheundisputedfacts
thatCBSwasagranteeofafranchisefromtheLegislature,andthattheactscomplainedagainst
(i.e.,refusaloftheMayorspermitandresultingclosureoftheradiostation)wereimminentand,
unlessenjoined,wouldcurtailorsetatnaughtCBSsrightsunderthefranchise.Inthisregard,
worthyofmentionisthateventheViceExecutiveJudge,acknowledgingthatCBShadstoodto
suffergrave

injustice and irreparable injury should its radio station suffer closure, had issued ex parte the
TRO.

It was error on the part of the petitioners to insist that the evidence of CBS should have first
been required before Judge Dabalos issued the writ of preliminary injunction. Rule 58 of the
RulesofCourtclearlylaystheburdenontheshouldersofthepetitioners,asthepartiesagainst
whom the TRO was issued, to show cause why the application for the writ of preliminary
[31]
injunctionshouldnotissue, thus:

Section 5. Preliminary injunction not granted without notice exception. No preliminary
injunctionshallbegrantedwithouthearingandpriornoticetothepartyorpersonsoughttobe
enjoined.Ifitshallappearfromfactsshownbyaffidavitsorbytheverifiedapplicationthatgreat
orirreparableinjurywouldresulttotheapplicantbeforethemattercanbeheardonnotice,the
court to which the application for preliminary injunction was made, may issue ex parte a
temporaryrestrainingordertobeeffectiveonlyforaperiodoftwenty(20)daysfromserviceon
thepartyorpersonsoughttobeenjoined,exceptashereinprovided.Withinthesaidtwentyday
period, the court must order said party or person to show cause, at a specified time and
place,whytheinjunctionshouldnotbegranted,determinewithinthesameperiodwhether
ornotthepreliminaryinjunctionshallbegranted,andaccordinglyissuethecorresponding
order.
xxx


Infine,JudgeDabalosproperlydirectedthepetitionerstofirstpresentevidencewhythe
application for the writ of preliminary injunction should not be granted. By their refusal to
comply with the directive to show cause by presenting their evidence to that effect, the
petitionerscouldblamenoonebutthemselves.

WHEREFORE, we deny the petition for review on certiorari, and affirm the decision dated
October28,2002promulgatedbytheCourtofAppealsinC.A.G.R.SPNo.69729.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/157315.htm 12/15
5/26/2017 G.R.No.157315

Costsofsuittobepaidbythepetitioners.

SOORDERED.




LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:




CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice
Chairperson





ARTUROD.BRIONMARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice





MARIALOURDESP.ARANALSERENO
AssociateJustice


ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethe
casewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.



CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/157315.htm 13/15
5/26/2017 G.R.No.157315

Chairperson
CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons
Attestation,IcertifythattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultation
beforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.




RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

[1]
Rollo,pp.3747pennedbyAssociateJusticeCancioC.Garcia(laterPresidingJusticeandaMemberoftheCourt,butalready
retired),andconcurredinbyAssociateJusticeEloyR.Bello,Jr.(retired)andAssociateJusticeSergioL.Pestao(retiredanddeceased).
[2]
ThisrenditionislargelybasedonthenarrationmadeinappealeddecisionoftheCA.
[3]
Rollo,pp.103104.
[4]
Id.,pp.7283.
[5]
Id.,pp.106108.
[6]
Id.,p.42.
[7]
Id.,p.111.
[8]
Id.,pp.109110.
[9]
Id.,pp.116117.
[10]
Id.,pp.119124.
[11]
Id.,p.45
[12]
Id.,p.46.
[13]
Id.,pp.127133.
[14]
Id.,p.133.
[15]
Id.,p.47.
[16]
Id.,pp.2324.
[17]
Id.,p.53.
[18]
G.R.No.124760,July8,1998,292SCRA76.
[19]
Alcantarav.Tamin,A.M.No.RTJ951305,April21,1995,243SCRA549,550.
[20]
InthecitedcaseofGutangv.CourtofAppeals,supra,atp.85,theCourtobserved:
Inthefinalreckoning,thereisreallynohardandfastrulewhenitcomestotheinhibitionofjudges.Eachcaseshouldbe
treateddifferentlyanddecidedbasedonitspeculiarcircumstances.Theissueofvoluntaryinhibitionisprimarilyamatterof
conscienceandsounddiscretiononthepartofthejudge.Itisasubjectivetesttheresultofwhichthereviewingtribunalwill
notdisturbintheabsenceofanymanifestfindingofarbitrarinessandwhimsicality.Thediscretiongiventotrialjudgesisan
acknowledgmentofthefactthatthesejudgesareinabetterpositiontodeterminetheissueofinhibitionastheyaretheones
whodirectlydealwiththepartieslitigantsintheircourtrooms.
[21]
Rollo,pp.120121.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/157315.htm 14/15
5/26/2017 G.R.No.157315

[22]
LeviStrauss&Co.v.ClintonAparelleInc.,G.R.No.138900,September20,2005,470SCRA236.
[23]
LeeHiongWeev.DeePingWee,G.R.No.163511,June30,2006,494SCRA258.
[24]
LeviStrauss&Co.v.ClintonAparelleInc,supra.
[25]
Saulogv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.119769,September18,1996,262SCRA51.
[26]
ToyotaMotorPhilippinesCorporationv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.102881,December7,1992,216SCRA236.
[27]
Lopezv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.110929,January20,2000,322SCRA686.
[28]
BuayanCattleCo.,Inc.v.Quintillan,L26970,March19,1984,128SCRA276.
[29]
43CJSInjunctions18.
[30]
Orociov.Anguluan,G.R.NO.17989293,January30,2009,577SCRA531.
[31]
SeealsoLeev.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.147191,July27,2006,496SCRA668,699.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/157315.htm 15/15