court) could not interfere with or preempt the

action or decision of the Court of Appeals on

the writ of preliminary injunction whose
annulment was sought therein by Phoenix
and the LRTA.
Same; Same; Same; Same.—In petitioning
738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS the trial court to lift the writ of preliminary
ANNOTATED injunction which they themselves had brought
up to the Court of Appeals for review, Phoenix
Joy Mart Consolidated Corp. vs. Court
and the LRTA engaged in forum-shopping.
of Appeals
After the question of whether the writ of
preliminary injunction should be annulled or
G.R. No. 88705. June 11, 1992.* continued had been elevated to the Court of
Appeals for determination, the trial court lost
JOY MART CONSOLIDATED jurisdiction or authority to act on the same
CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. matter. By seeking from the trial court an
COURT OF APPEALS, PHOENIX order lifting the writ of preliminary injunction,
OMEGA DEVELOPMENT AND Phoenix and LRTA sought to divest the Court
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION AND of Appeals of its jurisdiction to review the writ.
LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, They improperly tried to moot their own
respondents. petition in the Court of Appeals—a clear case
of trifling with the proceedings in the appellate
Injunction; Appeal; Jurisdiction; Once a court or of disrespect for said court.
writ of preliminary injunction issued by a Same; Same; Same; Same.—The trial
trial court is elevated to a higher court, the judge played into the hands of Phoenix and
former loses jurisdiction over it and can no the LRTA, and acted with grave abuse of
longer dissolve it.—The answer is no. After the discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction
LRTA and Phoenix had elevated the writ of in granting their motion to dissolve the writ of
preliminary injunction to the Court of Appeals injunction. Judicial courtesy behooved the trial
for determination of the propriety of its court to keep its hands off the writ of
issuance (CA-G.R. SP No. 12998), the trial preliminary injunction and defer to the better
court (notwithstanding the absence of a judgment of the Court of Appeals the
temporary restraining order from the appellate
determination of whether the writ should be preliminary injunction that was pending
continued or discontinued. review in the Court of Appeals was a form of
forum shopping which this Court views with
extreme disapproval. The lower court's
_______________
proceeding being void for lack of jurisdiction,
* FIRST DIV ISION.
the writ of preliminary injunction should be
reinstated, and the petition to annul the writ
(CA-G.R. SP No. 12998) should be dismissed
739 on the ground of forum shopping as provided
in Rule No. 17 of the Interim Rules and
Guidelines, Rules of Court.
VOL. 209, JUNE 11, 1992 739

Joy Mart Consolidated Corp. vs. Court of PETITION for review from the decision
Appeals of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the

Same; Non-issuance of TRO by C.A. Court.
simply meant trial court can proceed to hear           M.M. Lazaro & Associates for
the complaint, but not to lift the injunction on petitioners.
review by the C.A.—The non-issuance of a           Nicanor Padilla, Jr. for private
temporary restraining order by the Court of respondent.
Appeals upon receipt of the petition in CA-G.R.
SP No. 12998 simply meant that the trial court GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:
could proceed to hear and decide the main
complaint of Joy Mart for specific performance Does a trial court possess jurisdiction to
of contract and damages against the LRTA dissolve a writ of preliminary injunction
and Phoenix. It did not give the lower court a which is pending review on certiorari in
license to interfere with the appellate court's the Court of Appeals?
disposition of the writ of preliminary In 1978-79, the government planned
injunction. the Light Rail Transit (LRT) system to
service the transportation requirements
Action; Injunction; Petition to annul writ
of the commuting public from Baclaran
of injunction is dismissed for forum-shopping.
to Balintawak Monument and vice versa.
—The private respondents' application to the
The property of Joy Mart at Carriedo
trial court for the dissolution of the writ of
Street. Sta, Cruz, Manila, where the Philippine General Hospital Foundation
Isetann Department Store is located, and Inc. which had been granted the right,
three (3) other adjoining parcels of land authority, and license to develop the
(with a total area of 1,611 sq.m., on which areas adjacent to the LRT stations and to
stands the Presidente Hotel leased by manage and operate the concessions to
Joy Mart) was among the properties that be established in Caloocan, Manila, and
would be needed for the LRT system and Pasay, with the right to sublease, assign,
were being considered for expropriation and transfer any of its rights and
should negotiations for their acquisition interests therein.
fail. As a gesture of coopera- On February 22, 1983, Joy Mart
conveyed its property and waived its
740
leasehold rights on the adjacent lots in
favor of the government, through the
740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS LRTA, under a Deed of Absolute Sale.
ANNOTATED The Deed provided, among other things,
that "upon recommendation of the special
Joy Mart Consolidated Corp. vs. Court
panel created by the LRTA Committee
of Appeals
on Land and Property Acquisition. LRTA
agreed that Joy Mart, the owner of
tion with the government, Joy Mart Isetann and lessee of the Presidente
consented to sell the property and give Hotel, should be given the first option in
up its leasehold rights over the adjacent the redevelopment of the consolidated
properties, provided, it would be given block, notwithstanding their
the first option to redevelop the entire compensation for the property."
area denominated as the consolidated As partial compliance with the
block of the LRT Carriedo station aforestated first option, the PGH
encompassing Joy Mart's properties. Foundation subleased to Joy Mart the
On September 8,1982, while LRT Carriedo station covering the
negotiations for the purchase of the consolidated block for the purpose of
properties were ongoing between Joy constructing a multi-storey building of
Mart and the Special Committee on Land first class materials.
and Property Acquisition of the Light Subsequently, Joy Mart submitted to
Rail Transit Authority (LRTA), the latter LRTA its plans for the construction of the
entered into a contract with the
building occupying the consolidated Pursuant to its understanding with,
block. However, LRTA informed Joy and the assurances of, LRTA, Joy Mart
Mart that the proposed building should constructed an eight-storey building with
occupy only an area of 1,141.20 square ten levels fully airconditioned in subject
meters as the rest of the areas within the area. Joy Mart had to borrow P50.0
consolidated block would be used by the Million for this project. The feasibility
LRT station and as set-back area or open study on the viability of this project was
space for the benefit of the commuting conditioned upon Joy Mart serving the
public, business requirements in the LRT
When Joy Mart reminded LRTA of Carriedo station and maintaining its first
the contract provisions over the option to redevelop and occupy any
consolidated block, the former was available area therein.
assured that, in the event any area in the On November 28, 1986, LRTA entered
consolidated block was to be released for into a Commercial Stalls Concession
redevelopment, the first option of Joy Contract with the Phoenix Omega
Mart would be respected Development and Management
Corporation ("Phoenix" for brevity)
741
awarding to it all the areas and
commercial spaces within the three LRT
VOL. 209, JUNE 11, 1992 741 terminals and the fifteen (15) on-line
stations.
Joy Mart Consolidated Corp. vs. Court
In the third quarter of 1987, Joy Mart
of Appeals
learned of the contract between LRTA
and Phoenix when construction activities
and implemented. commenced within the consolidated block
On August 30, 1984, an Addendum to of the LRT Carriedo station.
the Sublease Agreement was executed Joy Mart made representations with
between Joy Mart and the PGH the LRTA and reiterated its first option
Foundation increading the area to be to redevelop the subject area, but to no
used and occupied by Joy Mart. Aside avail.
from the increase of monthly rental and Joy Mart filed a complaint for specific
provision for an escalation clause, Joy performance of contract and damages for
Mart was made to pay "goodwill" in the breach of contract with injunction
sum of P3.0 Million.
against the LRTA and Phoenix on hearing the parties and considering their
August 21, 1987. The case entitled "Joy respective memorandums in
Mart vs. LRTA and Phoenix," was amplification of oral arguments, issued a
docketed as Civil Case No. 87-41731 in writ of preliminary injunction
the Regional Trial Court of Manila, "commanding the defendant Phoenix to
Branch XXXII. Joy Mart asked that cease and desist from continuing with the
LRTA be ordered to award to it, either by construction going on adjacent to the
sale, or lease, the redevelopment of the property on lease to the plaintiff by
area known as the consolidated block of LRTA, until further orders from this
the LRT Carriedo station which is part of court, upon posting by the plaintiff of a
the area subject of the Deed of Absolute P10,000.00 bond approved by the court,
Sale dated February 22, 1983, executed which may answer for any damages that
by Joy Mart in favor of the Government the defendants may sustain by reason of
or LRTA. Joy Mart also asked the court the issuance of this writ" (p. 41, Rollo).
to issue a writ of preliminary injunction Phoenix sought relief in the Court of
and/or restraining order "commanding Appeals by filing a Petition for Certiorari
the respondents (LRTA and Phoenix) and Prohibition (CA-G.R. SP No. 12998)
individually and collectively, praying the appellate court: (1) to require
the trial court to immediately lift the writ
742
of injunction and/or to refrain from
further carrying out or implementing it;
742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS and (2) after due hearing: (a) reverse and
ANNOTATED set aside the order granting the writ of
preliminary injunction; (b) dissolve the
Joy Mart Consolidated Corp. vs. Court
writ of injunction dated September 23,
of Appeals
1987; and (c) prohibit the trial judge from
taking cognizance of the case and to
their officers and employees, to cease and remand it to Branch IX of the Regional
desist from the construction being had in Trial Court of Manila which had first
the property adjacent to the leased taken cognizance of the case. The
premises." petition was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
On September 25, 1987, the trial 12998 and raffled to the Sixteenth
court, presided by Judge (now Court of Division of the Court of Appeals which
Appeals Justice) Artemon D. Luna, after
gave due course to the petition but did losses to LRTA and Phoenix because
not issue a restraining order against the they have been unable to use the
trial court. commercial stalls in the consolidated
Meanwhile, in the trial court, the block while Joy Mart could be
LRTA and Phoenix filed separate compensated for any loss it may suffer if
answers to Joy Mart's complaint in Civil the injunction were lifted; "that at a rate
Case No. 87-41731. The pre-trial of the of P1,000.00 monthly rental per square
case was set on November 13, 1987. As meter, the 28 stalls would earn
Phoenix and Joy Mart were exploring P305,800.00 a month (tsn, idem), that
avenues for an amicable settlement, the since September 21, 1987 when the
pre-trial conference was re-set on injunction was issued up to the present,
December 11, 1987, January 14, 1988, Phoenix should have earned
and lastly on March 2, 1988 when it was P2,752,200.00 and suffered as much in
declared terminated. damages which it will continue to suffer if
On May 30, 1988, while their the injunction is not lifted" (p. 80, Rollo).
certiorari petition to review the writ of They pleaded that they "are as much
preliminary injunction issued by Judge entitled to the protection of their rights
Luna (CA-G.R. SP No. 12998) was still as plaintiff, that if fair play gives the
pending in the Court of Appeals, the plaintiff a right to prolong the litigation,
LRTA and Phoenix filed in the trial court fairness also demands that defendants be
a joint petition to dissolve the said Writ relieved of the thousands of pesos in
of Preliminary Injunction, offering to damages that they suffer for every day of
post delay in this case occasioned by the
imposition of the injunction" (p. 69,
743
Rollo).
Joy Mart opposed the petition to
VOL. 209, JUNE 11, 1992 743 dissolve the injunction. The petition was
heard on June 17, 1988 with the parties
Joy Mart Consolidated Corp. vs. Court
orally arguing their respective sides of
of Appeals
the question.
On July 6,1988, the trial court
a counterbond for that purpose. They dissolved the writ of preliminary
alleged that the writ of preliminary injunction on the ground that its
injunction was causing tremendous
continuance would cause great damage Joy Mart Consolidated Corp. vs. Court of
to the respondents, while the petitioner's Appeals
claim for damages, which was yet to be
proven, can be fully compensated. Joy Section 6, Rule 58, Rules of Court that it may
Mart filed a motion for reconsideration. dissolve the writ if it appears during the
LRTA and Phoenix opposed it. The trial hearing that although plaintiff is entitled to
court denied Joy Mart's Motion for the injunction, its continuance would cause
Reconsideration on August 9,1988, great damage to the defendants while the
stating thus: plaintiff can be fully compensated for such
damages as it may suffer (Cf. Tiaoqui and
"The petition for dissolution is based on
Imperial vs. Horilleno, 63 Phil. 116, 120)." (pp.
pertinent portion of Section 6, Rule 58 of the
70-71, Rollo.)
Rules of Court, that the continuance of the
injunction would cause great and irreparable On August 17, 1988, the Sixteenth
damage to defendants while plaintiff can be Division of the Court of Appeals upon
fully compensated for whatever damages that being apprised by Phoenix of the trial
it may suffer. The evidence adduced during court's action, dismissed Phoenix's
the hearing of the petition for dissolution of petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No.
the writ showed that the continuance of the 12998) for having become moot and
writ would cause great damages to defendants academic.
and plaintiffs claim for damages, if any and On September 14,1989, Joy Mart
which it has yet to prove, can be fully sought relief in the Court of Appeals from
compensated. Judge Luna's order lifting the writ of
The order of dissolution expressed in no preliminary injunction. In its petition for
uncertain terms that this Court may not be certiorari with preliminary injunction
ascribed as having pre-empted the authority and restraining order (CA-G.R. SP No.
and jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over 15618, assigned to the Ninth Division of
the certiorari proceedings. The authority of the Court of Appeals), Joy Mart prayed
this Court to dissolve the writ is inferable in that:
744 "x x x a temporary restraining order be
forthwith issued commanding the Honorable
744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS respondent Court to refrain from further
ANNOTATED proceeding in the matter sought to be reviewed
x x x; (c) the application for a writ of VOL. 209, JUNE 11, 1992 745
preliminary injunction be granted restraining
Joy Mart Consolidated Corp. vs. Court
respondent Phoenix from continuing its
of Appeals
subleasing and construction activities adjacent
to the premises leased to petitioner by
respondent LRTA until the main case is finally
Despite the temporary restraining order
decided; and (d) a judgment be rendered
which it received on September 19, 1988,
declaring the order of 6 July 1988, as well as
Phoenix continued its construction
the order of 9 August 1988, of the Honorable
activities and allowed its tenants to
respondent Court to be null and void, and
occupy the finished stalls. Whereupon
upholding the order of 21 September 1987 to
Joy Mart filed a motion praying the
be valid and binding." (pp. 39-40, Rollo.)
Court of Appeals to declare Phoenix in
contempt of court.
The Court of Appeals, Ninth Division, After hearing the application for a
gave due to the petition and required the writ of preliminary injunction, the
respondents to answer within ten (10) opposition and answers of the LRTA and
days from notice. The Court temporarily Phoenix, and the memoranda of the
restrained the respondents "from parties, the Court of Appeals, Ninth
implementing the questioned orders of 6 Division, on February 28, 1989,
July 1988 and 9 August 1988, and for dismissed Joy Mart's petition.
private respondent Phoenix to refrain Hence, this petition for review in
from engaging in subleasing and which Joy Mart alleges that the Court of
construction activities in the questioned Appeals erred:
premises, and from implementing the
sub-lease contracts if already signed, or 1. in not finding that the trial court
the occupancy of the commercial stalls if lost jurisdiction to act on the
already constructed, until further orders motion to dissolve the writ or
from this court" (pp. 17-18, Rollo). It set preliminary injunction, after the
the hearing of the application for a writ of said writ had been elevated to the
preliminary injunction on September Court of Appeals, Sixteenth
29,1988. Division, for review;
2. in not finding that Phoenix is
745 guilty of forum-shopping; and
 3. in not finding Phoenix guilty of determination, the trial court lost
contempt of court, and in not jurisdiction or authority to act on the
issuing a writ of preliminary same matter. By seeking from the trial
mandatory injunction. court an order lifting the writ of
preliminary injunction, Phoenix and
These assignments of error are reducible LRTA sought to divest the Court of
to the lone issue of whether the trial
746
court continued to have control of the
writ of preliminary injunction even after
the same had been raised to the Court of 746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Appeals for review. ANNOTATED
The answer is no. After the LRTA and
Joy Mart Consolidated Corp. vs. Court
Phoenix had elevated the writ of
of Appeals
preliminary injunction to the Court of
Appeals for determination of the
propriety of its issuance (CA-G.R. SP No. Appeals of its jurisdiction to review the
12998), the trial court (notwithstanding writ. They improperly tried to moot their
the absence of a temporary restr aining own petition in the Court of Appeals—a
order from the appellate court) could not clear case of trifling with the proceedings
interfere with or preempt the action or in the appellate court or of disrespect for
decision of the Court of Appeals on the said court.
writ of prelimary injunction whose In Prudential Bank vs. Castro, 142
annulment was sought therein by SCRA 223, 231 where the trial judge
Phoenix and the LRTA issued an order changing or correcting
In petitioning the trial court to lift the his previous order which had been
writ of preliminary injunction which they elevated to the Supreme Court for
themselves had brought up to the Court review, the judge's actuation was deemed
of Appeals for review, Phoenix and the to be "disrespectful of this Court."
LRTA engaged in forumshopping. After "(e) Respondent Judge, in his Order of March
the question of whether the writ of 13, 1985, gave course to the appeal of
preliminary injunction should be Complainant Bank although he had already
annulled or continued had been elevated ruled that the latter had lost the right of
to the Court of Appeals for appeal. That Order of March 13, 1985 was
issued after Complainant Bank had instituted motion to dissolve the writ of injunction.
G.R. No. 69907 on February 19, 1985, asking Judicial courtesy behooved the trial court
that Respondent Judge be ordered to allow its to keep its hands off the writ of
appeal from the summary judgment. The preliminary injunction and defer to the
Order of March 13, 1985 was clearly intended better judgment of the Court of Appeals
to render G.R. No. 69907 moot and academic. the determination of whether the writ
Said Order was disrespectful of this Court. If should be continued or discontinued.
at all, Respondent Judge should have come to
747
this Court in said G.R. No. 69907. to ask for
leave to allow the appeal of Complainant Bank
with admission that he had realized that his VOL. 209, JUNE 11, 1992 747
previous denial of the appeal was erroneous."
Joy Mart Consolidated Corp. vs. Court
The actuation of Judge Luna in Civil of Appeals
Case No. 87-41731 can be categorized as
such. It is not excused by the fact that The non-issuance of a temporary
Phoenix and LRTA were presenting restraining order by the Court of Appeals
evidence of losses and damages in upon receipt of the petition in CA-G.R.
support of their motion to lift the writ of SP No. 12998 simply meant that the trial
preliminary injunction, for that could as court could proceed to hear and decide
easily have been done by them in the the main complaint of Joy Mart for
Court of Appeals which possesses "the specific performance of contract and
power to try cases and conduct hearing, damages against the LRTA and Phoenix.
receive evidence and perform any and all It did not give the lower court a license to
acts necessary to resolve factual issues interfere with the appellate court's
raised in cases falling within its original disposition of the writ of preliminary
and appellate jurisdiction, including the injunction.
power to grant and conduct new trials or By simply "noting" that the trial
further proceedings" (Sec. 9, par. [3], 2nd court's order lifting the writ of
par., B.P. Blg. 129). preliminary injunction had mooted the
The trial judge played into the hands case before it, the Court of Appeals
of Phoenix and the LRTA, and acted with displayed regrettable indifference toward
grave abuse of discretion amounting to the lower court's interference with the
excess of jurisdiction in granting their exercise of the appellate court's
jurisdiction to decide and dispose of the preliminary injunction should be
petition for certiorari pending before it. reinstated, and the petition to annul the
Instead of being jealous of its writ (CA-G.R. SP No. 12998) should be
jurisdiction, the Appellate Court was dismissed on the ground of forum
simply glad to be rid of the case. shopping as provided in Rule No. 17 of
The Court of Appeals' reasoning that the Interim Rules and Guidelines, Rules
the trial court did not overlap or of Court.
encroach upon its (the Court of Appeals')
748
jurisdiction because the trial court "was
actually delving into a new matter—the
propriety of the continuance of the writ of 748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
preliminary injunction in view of ANNOTATED
developments and circumstances
Joy Mart Consolidated Corp. vs. Court
occurring after the issuance of the
of Appeals
injunction" (pp. 51-52, Rollo), is
unconvincing, for the issue of the
"17. Petitions for writs of certiorari, etc.—No
impropriety of issuing the writ of
petition for certiorari, mandamus, prohibition,
preliminary injunction was inseparable
habeas corpus or quo warranto may be filed in
from the issue of whether the writ should
the Intermediate Appellate Court if another
be maintained or not. By lifting the writ
similar petition has been filed or is still
of injunction before the Court of Appeals
pending in the Supreme Court. Nor may such
could rule on whether or not it was
petition be filed in the Supreme Court if a
properly issued, the trial court in effect
similar petition has been filed or still pending
preempted the Court of Appeals'
in the Intermediate Appellate Court, unless it
jurisdiction and flouted its authority.
be to review the action taken by the
The private respondents' application
Intermediate Appellate Court on the petition
to the trial court for the dissolution of the
filed with it. A violation of this rule shall
writ of preliminary injunction that was
constitute contempt of court and shall be a
pending review in the Court of Appeals
cause for the summary dismissal of both
was a form of forum shopping which this
petitions, without prejudice to the taking of
Court views with extreme disapproval.
appropriate action against the counsel or party
The lower court's proceeding being void
concerned."
for lack of jurisdiction, the writ of
The dismissal of Phoenix and LRTA's deposited by them, or the lessees, in the
petition in G.R. No. SP 12998 by the Regional Trial Court to await the final
Court of Appeals (Sixteenth Division) judgment in Civil Case No. 87-41731.
was correct, but it should be for violation Costs against the private respondents.
of Rule 17 of the Interim Rules and The Court of Appeals, Ninth Division,
Guidelines (forum-shopping), not because is ordered to hear and decide Joy Mart's
the petition had become moot and petition to declare Phoenix in contempt
academic. of court for having allegedly defied and
The dismissal of Joy Mart's petition disobeyed the Court's temporary
for certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No, 15618 by restraining order of September 15, 1988
the Court of Appeals (Ninth Division) is in CA-G.R. SP No. 115618.
annulled and set aside for grave abuse of
749
discretion.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review
is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals' VOL. 209, JUNE 11, 1992 749
decision dated February 28,1989 in CA
Nueva Ecija III Electric Cooperative,
G.R. SP No. 115618, dismissing Joy
Inc. vs. NLRC
Mart's petition for certiorari and
upholding the dissolution by the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch SO ORDERED.
32, of the preliminary writ of injunction
     Cruz (Chairman), Medialdea and
in Civil Case No. 87-41731, is hereby
Bellosillo, JJ., concur.
annulled and set aside and the
preliminary writ of injunction issued by Petition granted; decision annulled
the trial court on September 23, 1987 in and set aside.
Civil Case No. 87-41731 is reinstated.
However, if in the meantime the Note.—The primary purpose of an
construction and occupancy of the injunction is to preserve the status quo,
private respondents' commercial stalls that is the last actual peaceable
sought to be stopped by the injunction uncontested status which preceded the
have been completed, the rentals controversy (Rivera vs. Florendo, 144
received by the private respondents after SCRA 643).
the finality of this decision shall be
 ——o0o——

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.