Rule 58Section 2: Who may grant Preliminary Injunction

DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS vs HON. JOSE

ALIGAEN
GR NO L-31135; 29 MAY 1970
DIRECTOR OR OFFICER-IN-CHARGE OF THE BUREAU OF v HON. JOSE ALIGAEN AND JOSE M.F. BELO
TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LEON CERVANTES AND s
VIVENCIO ALAGBAY
Ponente: Zaldivar, J.
Fact Belo filed with CFI a verified petition of injunction with preliminary
s injunction alleging that he was the grantee of Congressional franchise to
establish, maintain and operate a telephone system in Roxas City and that
petitioners were starting to establish, maintain and operate in the same
geographical area of Roxas which would directly compete with the
telephone system he was already operating.
Judge Aligaen entered an order authorizing the issuance of the writ of
preliminary injunction and thus restraining petitioners and their agents and
representatives from constructing another telephone system.
Belo filed an urgent motion to declare petitioners in contempt of court
because they continued the installation in spite of the injunction.
Petitioners filed a joint motion for dissolution of the writ of injunction.
The solicitor general filed an answer to the petition for injunction of Belo
denying allegations and setting up special and affirmative defenses that
trial court did not have jurisdiction over the case, it being a suit against the
government and that the court had no jurisdiction to issue writ of
injunction against the director of bureau of telecommunications.
City Fiscal also filed a motion to dismiss un the ground of lack of
jurisdiction and failure to state a cause of action.
Court held Alagabay and agents liable for contempt of court but did not
impose penalty because they had stopped working, and denied the motion
for dissolution of the injunction.
Petitioners filed an instant petition for a writ of certiorari and prohibition
with preliminary injunction with the SC, which the court granted.
Issu W/N the court of first instance has jurisdiction, power and authority to issue
e writ of preliminary injunction
Held Yes. Petition is dismissed.
Ruli The court of first instance has no jurisdiction to restrain by injunction acts
ng committed outside the territorial boundaries of their respective provinces
or districts.
Courts of first instance have jurisdiction to control or restrain acts
committed or about to be committed within the territorial boundaries of
their respective provinces and districts by means of the writ of injunction.
In the instant case, the acts relative to the establishment of a local
telephone system by petitioners were being done within the territorial
boundaries of the province or district of respondent court, and so said
court had jurisdiction to restrain them by injunction. It does not matter
that some of the respondents in the trial court, against whom the
injunctive order was issued, had their official residences outside the
territorial jurisdiction of the trial court.
We believe that respondent court had acted in accordance with the
provisions of Section 3, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court. The respondent court
considered it necessary to issue the writ because the continuance of the
acts of installing the new telephone system by the respondents below
would render the judgment in the petition for injunction ineffectual.
If the damages that may be suffered by the defendant by the continuance
 of the injunction outweigh the damages that may be suffered by the
plaintiff by the dissolution of the injunction, then the injunction should be
dissolved. Respondent court took into consideration that "the petitioner
(Belo) will suffer great and irreparable injury.
We hold, therefore, that respondent court did not commit a grave abuse of
discretion when it refused to dissolve the writ of preliminary injunction it
had issued.