Republic of the Philippines
7th Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CEBU
Branch 14, Cebu City
RENEE VALENCIA BHAGWANDAS,
Plaintiff,
- versus - Case No. CEB-33560
SURESH BHAGWANDAS,
Defendant.
X---------------------------------------/
URGENT MOTION FOR DISSOLUTION OF EX-PARTE
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
COMES NOW, the defendant, by the undersigned counsel, most
respectfully states, THAT:
1. An ex-parte Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was issued by this
Court on August 21, 2007 which was received by the defendant on
August 23, 2007;
2. This ex-parte TRO was issued for a period of twenty (20) days from
receipt by the defendant of the order;
3. The defendant believes that there were no justifiable grounds for
the issuance of the ex-parte TRO without the conduct of a
summary hearing as required under Section 5 of Rule 58;
4. Despite the allegations of the plaintiff in the complaint and her
supporting affidavits, the defendant has manifested, during the
Preliminary Conference of this case on August 28, 2007 that the
vehicles alleged to be part of the family business and found at the
Sure Auto Plaza were all consigned units and not registered in the
defendant's name;
5. Moreover, the defendant's only means of livelihood are the
commissions that he earns from the sale of these vehicles on
consignment;
6. It is submitted that the fact that a preliminary attachment was
already issued by the Court on August 13, 2007 obviates the need
for the issuance of the ex-parte TRO considering that by attaching
all properties, real or personal, of the defendant, there would no
longer be any “great and irreparable” injury suffered by the
plaintiff;
7. The conduct of the summary hearing as required by the rules
would have precluded the issuance of the questioned ex-parte
TRO;
8. It is the defendant who stands to suffer grave and irreparable
injury by the continuation of the ex-parte TRO considering that he
no longer has any means of earning a living and he is now the
subject of plaintiff's motion for support pendente lite of which if
granted would make it impossible for him to comply;
9. Additionally, the defendant is in grave danger of being sued by the
consignors of the vehicles in his custody or the subject of a third-
party complaint now that one of the owners of the vehicles has
submitted a third party claim before this Honorable Court;
10. The defendant is also obligated to pay for the rental and
other expenses of his business which is in grave danger of being
closed because he could not comply with these obligations;
11. The very reason that the Supreme Court promulgated
Administrative Circular No. 20-95, which is now incorporated in
Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 58, is to prevent the precipitate issuance
of Temporary Restraining Orders Ex-Parte;
12. It is respectfully submitted that the grounds relied upon by
the plaintiff for the issuance of an ex-parte TRO are not present in
this case and thus the absence of a summary hearing for the
determination of its issuance makes the same irregularly issued
and must be dissolved immediately;
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the defendant prays that the
Honorable Court grant this motion and recall or dissolve the Ex-Parte
Temporary Restraining Order issued on August 22, 2007;
Done this 10th day of September 2007 in Cebu City, Philippines.
