RAYMUNDA SIVA ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. FELIXBERTO IMPERIAL REYES, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOILO, AND CORNELIO QUIDATO, RESPONDENTS.

In the present petition for certiorari, the petitioners seek
the review and annulment of the order of the respondent judge in civil case No.
798 of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, the dispositive part of which
reads as follows:

“Procede ordenar, como por el presente ordena, a los
demandantes que de hoy en adelante y hasta que recaiga decision final en este
asunto se abstengan de cometer actos de usurpacion y de intromision en la
posesion de los demandados en el terreno, objeto de este litigio, so pena de ser
declarados incursos en desacato.”

This order was entered before trial on the merits of civil case
No. 798, and it is contended for the petitioners that until the question of
ownership and possession has been detemined, they cannot be enjoined in the
manner, stated in the order complained of.

It is insisted, however, by the respondents that said order
amounts to a writ of preliminary injunction which the respondent Judge may
issue during the pendency of said civil case.

The contention of counsel for the respondents as to the nature
of the order in correct. Even so, we have no hesitancy in holding that its
issuance was irregular, in that, contrary to the provisions of section 4 of Rule
of Court No. 60, no bond was required by the respondent Judge and filed by the
party in whose favor the order was issued. Said rule plainly provides that a
preliminary injunction may be granted only, aside from the requirement that the
complaint in the action must be verified and must show facts entitling the
plaintiff to the relief demanded, when “the plaintiff files with the clerk or
judge of the court in which the action is pending a bond executed to the party
enjoined, in an amount to be fixed by the court, to the effect that the
plaintiff will pay to such party all damages which he may sustain by reason of
the injunction if the court should finally decide that the plaintiff was not
entitled thereto.”

Without deciding whether or not the facts of the case justify
the issuance of any restraining order against the petitioners, we rule that, for
lack of the requisite bond, the order in question should be, as the same is
hereby, set aside. Petition granted with costs against respondent Cornelio
Quidato. So ordered.

Moran, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Briones,
Tuason, Montemayor, and Reyes, JJ., concur.