SUNRISE GARDEN CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND FIRST ALLIANCE REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT, INC., RESPONDENTS.

Sunrise Garden versus Court of Appeals

The Case

This is a consolidated set of petitions arising from a construction dispute over a city road in Antipolo. Sunrise Garden Corporation, a landowner developing a memorial park, sued Hardrock Aggregates for damages and obtained a writ of preliminary injunction to stop the blocking of its contractor. When the trial court later amended that writ to reach "any and all persons or groups of persons," it effectively bound First Alliance Real Estate Development, which was never a party to the main case. The case matters because it fixes a hard rule on the reach of the ancillary writ of preliminary injunction: it operates only against parties and those who act in their behalf, never against a stranger to the action.

Procedural History

Sunrise Garden filed a complaint for damages with a prayer for a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction against Hardrock Aggregates before the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order, then a writ of preliminary injunction, and later an amended writ that reached "any and all persons or groups of persons." After First Alliance and K-9 Security Agency were ordered to comply, they moved for reconsideration, which was denied. First Alliance then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which issued a temporary restraining order and later a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the implementation of the trial court's amended writ and orders. On November 5, 2003, the Court of Appeals granted First Alliance's petition and annulled the amended writ for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion and without jurisdiction. Sunrise Garden and the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, separately filed petitions for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court, later followed by petitions for review on certiorari, all of which the Supreme Court consolidated.

Facts

In 1998 the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Antipolo City passed an ordinance creating a technical committee to study a proposed city road connecting several barangays. In 1999 the Sangguniang Barangay of Cupang requested the construction of a road linking Barangay Cupang to Marcos Highway. Sunrise Garden, an affected landowner planning a memorial park, executed an Undertaking to construct the city road at its own expense, subject to reimbursement through tax credits, making the project a joint undertaking of the city, the barangays, and Sunrise Garden.

When Sunrise Garden's contractor began positioning equipment, armed guards allegedly hired by Hardrock Aggregates blocked the access road. Sunrise Garden sued Hardrock for damages with a prayer for injunctive relief. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order and then a writ of preliminary injunction against Hardrock. When informal settlers began encroaching, Sunrise Garden moved to amend the writ, and the trial court issued an amended writ reaching "any and all persons or groups of persons."

Thereafter, guards of K-9 Security Agency, allegedly hired by First Alliance, blocked the contractor's employees. First Alliance was never impleaded in the main case. K-9 and First Alliance opposed the contempt motion on the ground that the trial court had no jurisdiction over them, since they were not parties and had received no notice. The trial court nonetheless ordered First Alliance and its security agencies to comply. First Alliance elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals, which annulled the amended writ.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in annulling the amended writ of preliminary injunction for having been enforced against First Alliance, a person who was never a party to the main action.
• Whether or not a writ of preliminary injunction may be issued without hearing and prior notice to the party or person sought to be enjoined.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in issuing its own writ of preliminary injunction in favor of First Alliance.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5 of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 5. Preliminary injunction not granted without notice; exception. No preliminary injunction shall be granted without hearing and prior notice to the party or person sought to be enjoined.

This provision is the core of the ruling: the ancillary writ cannot issue against a person who was never given notice and hearing, and First Alliance was precisely such a person.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that a person who is not a party in the main action cannot be the subject of the ancillary writ of preliminary injunction. The writ is ancillary and operates only to preserve the relation between the parties during the pendency of the suit. Since First Alliance was never impleaded and no relationship with Hardrock was shown, the trial court could not enforce the amended writ against it. The Court of Appeals was correct in annulling the amended writ.

On the second issue, the Court applied Section 5 of Rule 58. The amended writ reached First Alliance without hearing and prior notice to it, and so it was void as to First Alliance. The Court of Appeals rightly held that the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion and without jurisdiction when it sought to enforce the amended writ against a stranger and even threatened contempt for disobeying an unlawful order.

On the third issue, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the Court of Appeals' issuance of its own writ of preliminary injunction. The appellate court acted within its jurisdiction to preserve the status quo pending resolution of the case before it.

Doctrine

A writ of preliminary injunction is an ancillary remedy that binds only the parties to the main action and those who act in their behalf or under their authority. It cannot be enforced against a person who was never impleaded and who received no hearing and prior notice, for under Section 5 of Rule 58 no preliminary injunction shall be granted without hearing and prior notice to the party or person sought to be enjoined. Any order enforcing such a writ against a stranger is void for lack of jurisdiction and constitutes grave abuse of discretion.

Disposition

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals and sustained the annulment of the amended writ of preliminary injunction as against First Alliance, which was never a party to the main action.

Remember This

Memorize the line: a person who is not a party in the main action cannot be the subject of the ancillary writ of preliminary injunction. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of injunctive relief under Section 5 of Rule 58 and the limits of ancillary writs against non-parties.