8/13/2019 2013 Cases on Civil Procedure

1/2

Kristle-Liz Ignacio dela Cruz LLB-2

Civil Procedure December 7,2013

Atty.Henedino Joseph P. Eduarte,Jr. Page 1

G.R. No. 199324 : January 7, 2013

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY v. FORERUNNER MULTI

RESOURCES, INC

Facts:

President Gloria M. Arroyo issued EO 156 imposes a partial

ban on the importation of used motor vehicle to accelerate the sound

development of the motor vehicle industry in the country. The saidEO is enforceable throughout the country except in Subic Freeport by

virtue of its status as a separate customs territory under RA 7227.

Respondent, a corporation engaged in importation of used

motor vehicle via ports of Appari, La Union and San Fernando, sued

government to declare EO 156 invalid having been it superseded by

EO 418 modifying the tariff rates of imported used motor vehicle,

sought a preliminary injunctive to enjoin, litis pendentia, the

enforcement of EO 156.

RTC granted the relief. On petitioners motion, RTC

reconsidered its order and lifted the writ grounding its ruling on

Southwing which is considered as negating any clear and

unmistakable legal right on the part of the respondent to receive

`protection of writ of preliminary injunction.

Respondent appealed to CA and it granted the preliminary

injunction. Thus, an appeal.

Issue: Whether or not CA erred in granting the preliminary injunction

writ to respondent.

Held:

Yes. The Court of Appeals erred in granting the writ of preliminary

injunction. Respondent is without clear legal right to import used

vehicles under Rule 58 that preliminary injunction writ issues only

upon showing of the applicants `clear legal right being violated or

under threat of violation of defendant. It contemplates a right clearly

8/13/2019 2013 Cases on Civil Procedure

2/2

founded in or granted by law. Any hint of doubt or dispute on the

asserted legal rights precludes the grant of preliminary injunction. For

suits attacking the validity of laws or issuances with the force and

effect of law, as here, the applicant for preliminary injunctive reliefbears the added burden of overcoming the presumption of validity

inhering in such laws or issuances. These procedural barriers to the

issuance of a preliminary injunctive writ are rooted on the equitable

nature of such relief, preserving the status quo while, at the same

time, restricting the course of action of the defendants even before

adverse judgment is rendered against them.

Second, the Court of Appeals dwelt on the "grave and irremediable"

financial losses respondent was poised to sustain as a result of EO156s enforcement, finding such prejudice "inequitable."

Lastly, E.O. No. 156 is very explicit in its prohibition on the

importation of used motor vehicles. On the other hand, E.O. No. 418

merely modifies the tariff and nomenclature rates of import duty on

used motor vehicles. Nothing therein expressly revokes the

importation ban.