Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=45847:139275-76&amp;catid=1459&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:02:49+00:00

Document:
LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS and T.N. LAL & CO., LTD., Respondents.
Both filed by petitioner Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA),G.R. NOS. 139275-76 assail the Decision dated February 26, 1999, rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in the consolidated petitions docketed as CA-G.R. SP Nos. 44220 and 44227;1 G.R. No. 140949, on the other hand, questions the Decision dated November 12, 1999, issued by the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 52382.2 These cases originated from the orders issued by the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City (Branch 111) in Civil Case No. 97-0423.
On October 1, 1986, T.N. LAL & CO., LTD. (private respondent herein and hereafter to be referred to as LAL for short) donated a stereo system to the LRTA, to provide music for relaxation and amusement in the 18 stations and all the rail vehicles of LRTA along its Line 1. On March 19, 1990, LAL and the LRTA entered into an agreement whereby LAL was authorized to air commercial advertisements through the aforesaid stereo system for a period of five (5) years and three (3) months from March 19, 1990, in consideration of a fee equivalent to thirty percent (30%) of the gross sales of advertisements (less any agency commission) annually, with minimum annual guaranteed fees. Subsequently, the period of the contract was amended to five (5) years from April 1, 1992, or until March 31, 1997.
On March 31, 1997, LAL filed an action for reformation of contract and damages (with application for preliminary mandatory & prohibitory injunction and Temporary Restraining Order) against LRTA with the Regional Trial Court at Pasay City, and the same was docketed as Civil Case No. 97-0423 and raffled to Branch 111, presided over by the respondent judge.
The complaint alleged that vibrations and noises coming from the light rail vehicles caused disruptions in the sound system, resulting in a sharp decline of advertisements aired over the said system. LAL requested for a moratorium of the agreement until the said problem can be solved, but LRTA refused to grant such request. Hence, the complaint prays that the contract be reformed by including therein a provision allowing a moratorium in case of disruption affecting the system attributable to mechanical/technical problems in the LRT line or light rail vehicles, including a pro rata extension of the agreement. The complaint also prays for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction ordering the defendant to maintain the status quo and prohibiting it or any of its agents from disrupting, cutting, severing or disconnecting the electric power supplied to the plaintiffs sound system.
Upon receipt of the complaint, the respondent Judge issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the parties to maintain the status quo, and restraining the LRTA from disrupting, cutting, severing or disconnecting the electric power supplied to LALs sound system installed in all the LRT stations and vehicles. The TRO was to expire on April 20, 1997.
(b) As a consequence thereof, to desist from removing, disrupting, interfering, disconnecting or tampering the power supply leading to plaintiffs sound system, in all places, sites and locations within the defendants area of responsibility for the duration of this proceedings, UNLESS THIS ORDER IS EARLIER RECALLED by this Court.
On April 22, 1997, LRTA filed a Manifestation alleging that the failure of LAL to post a bond has rendered the Order dated April 16, 1997 ineffective. On the same day, LRTA unplugged the electrical connection of the sound system.
However, on April 25, 1997, LAL filed an injunction bond in the amount of P500,000.00, and the writ of preliminary injunction was issued by the respondent judge. The same was served on LRTA on the same day.
On April 25, 1997, LAL filed a Motion to Cite the Defendant in Contempt, alleging that on April 22, 1997, in defiance of the courts Order of March 31, 1997 (sic), the defendant disconnected and cut off the power supply to its sound system thereby disrupting and disturbing the regular programs and advertisements aired therein. The motion was set for hearing on April 29, 1997.
WHEREFORE, pending resolution of plaintiffs Motion To Cite Defendant In Contempt which is calendared anew on May 15, 1997 at 8:30 A.M., defendant Light Rail Transit Authority as well as its counsel are hereby ORDERED to comply with the Order of this Court dated April 16, 1997 to cause the complete restoration of the sound system to its original status/condition immediately upon receipt hereof. Let this Order be served for prompt implementation by the Sheriff of this Court who is directed to submit his report/return on the action taken in this regard.
On April 30, 1997, the LRTA filed a motion for reconsideration of the said order.
On May 5, 1997, LAL filed another motion to cite Evangeline M. Razon, Geronima P. Anastacio and Atty. Moises S. Tolentino, [Jr.] for civil contempt, for refusing to comply with the order of the court dated April 29, 1997. The motion was requested to be submitted for[to] the court for proper decision immediately upon receipt hereof.
On May 7, 1997, LRTA filed an opposition to the two motions to cite in contempt.
3) Moises S. Tolentino, [Jr.], General Manager, Metro Transit Organization, Operators of the LRT system.
for their apprehension and incarceration/imprisonment until such time when they have performed or cause to be performed the act complained of in this case, by reconnecting, replugging or reactivating plaintiffs sound system at all LRT facilities and restoring them in the same state and condition as it was on April 16, 1997.
Petitioner LRTA, meanwhile, filed a special civil action for certiorari(CA-G.R. SP No. 44220) on May 28, 1997, seeking the annulment of the following orders issued by the trial court: (1) Order dated April 29, 1997, ordering petitioner to comply with the trial courts Order dated April 16, 1997; and (2) Order dated May 13, 1997, denying petitioners motion for reconsideration and finding Atty. Tolentino, Razon, and Anastacio, guilty of indirect contempt and ordering the issuance of warrants of arrest against them.
WHEREFORE, the petitions filed in these cases are hereby GIVEN DUE COURSE, and judgment is hereby rendered ANNULLING AND SETTING ASIDE the Order dated May 13, 1997 and the warrants of arrest in connection therewith, issued by the respondent judge in Civil Case No. 97-0423.
Notwithstanding petitioners manifestation, the trial court issued an order dated April 7, 1999, granting respondents motion and ordering petitioner to immediately restore the power supply to respondents sound system within 24 hours.9 Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the trial court denied it in another (second) order dated April 7, 1999.
Thus, petitioner filed on April 22, 1999, another special civil action for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 52382) with the CA, contesting the trial courts orders dated April 7, 1999 and April 20, 1999 (previously dated April 7, 1999).
In the meantime, Petitioner, on April 14, 1999, filed in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 44220 and 44227 a Motion for Clarification of Decision,12 but it was denied by the CA per Resolution dated May 21, 1999.13 Petitioner sought reconsideration but it was also denied per Resolution dated July 9, 1999,14 prompting petitioner to institute on July 29, 1999, a Petition for Certiorariwith this Court, docketed as G.R. NOS. 139275-76.
The CA then promulgated its decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 52382 on November 12, 1999, dismissing the petition and affirming the assailed orders dated April 7, 1999 and April 20, 1999. Petitioner elevated the dismissal to this Court via petition for review filed on December 20, 1999, docketed as G.R. No. 140949.
IF THE BODY OF THE DECISION IN THE SAID CONSOLIDATED CASES IS IN CONFLICT WHICH HAS BECOME FINAL CONFLICTS WITH THE DISPOSITIVE PORTION THEREOF, WHICH OF THEM SHALL PREVAIL?
Petitioners argument rests mainly on its adamant belief that the discussion of the CA in the body of its Decision dated February 26, 1999, rendered in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 44220 and 44227, is inconsistent with its fallo, which nullified and set aside the trial courts order dated May 13, 1997. According to petitioner, since the May 13, 1997 order is premised on the April 16, 1997 (granting the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction) and April 29, 1997 (enforcing compliance with the injunctive writ) orders, therefore, these orders are likewise invalid, and respondent cannot seek its enforcement.
The Motion to Cite Defendant in Contempt, dated April 23, 1997 (Annex G, Petition, SP No. 44227) does not name them as respondents. It prays only that the defendant (LRTA) and its officers and employees who are responsible for the act complained of be held in contempt. It is only in the Motion to Cite Defendants for Civil Contempt Under Rule 71, Section 7 of the Revised Rules of Court dated May 5, 1997 (sic) that Evangeline M. Razon, Geronima P. Atanacio, and Moises S. Tolentino, [Jr.] are mentioned as responsible on the continuing defiance of the Orders of the Honorable Court. But the said motion was fatally defective in that it did not contain a proper notice of hearing, as required by Sec. 4, Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court. It only contains the request to the Branch Clerk of Court that the said motion be submitted to the court immediately upon receipt hereof.
Worst of all, the respondent judge issued his disputed order, two (2) days before the date that he himself fixed for the hearing of the motion to cite the defendant in contempt. Clearly, the said persons were denied their day in court.
If there was any error committed by the CA, it was in failing to state in the dispositive portion of the decision that the petition was only partiallygranted. But this does not affect the decision, as its import can be grasped notwithstanding the lapse. Consequently, the Decision dated February 26, 1999 in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 44220 and 44227 nullifying the Order dated May 13, 1997 is a valid decision.
Nevertheless, the Court agrees with petitioner that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the injunctive writ.
(c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.
(3) that there is an urgent and permanent act and urgent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.
The contract explicitly states that it was due to expire on March 31, 1997, the same day respondent filed its action for reformation of contract. When the trial court issued its Order dated April 16, 1997, ordering petitioner to refrain from terminating the contract and to retain respondents services until further orders from the court, the contract had already expired. Respondent, therefore, has no clear and unmistakable right to be protected by the issuance of the writ. This is but a consequence of their stipulation of a determinate period for its expiration.29 The injunction, in effect, virtually extended the original period agreed upon.
WHEREFORE, the petitions in G.R. NOS. 139275-76 and 140949, are hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated February 26, 1999, in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 44220 and 44227, and the Decision dated November 12, 1999, in CA-G.R. SP No. 52382, rendered by the Court of Appeals are hereby SET ASIDE. Consequently, the Orders dated April 16 and 29, 1997, issued by the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City (Branch 111) in Civil Case No. 97-0423, and all other orders appurtenant thereto, are NULLIFIED.
The trial court is ORDERED to proceed with Civil Case No. 97-0423 with immediate dispatch.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Hofilea, H., (now retired) with Associate Justices Amin, O. (now retired) and Villarama, Jr., M., concurring.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Adefuin-dela Cruz, B., (now retired) with Associate Justices Martin, Jr., F. (now retired) and Asuncion, E. J. S., concurring.
3 CA Rollo (SP No. 44227), pp. 168-171.
4 CA Rollo (SP No. 44227), p. 9.
5 CA Rollo (SP No. 44220), pp. 205-206.
6 CA Rollo (SP No. 44227), p. 178.
8 CA Rollo (SP No. 52382), pp. 38-39.
12 CA Rollo (SP No. 44227), p. 184.
15 Rollo (G.R. NOS. 139275-76), p. 45.
17 Rollo (G.R. No. 140949), p. 21.
18 Espiritu v. Court of First Instance of Cavite, G.R. No. L-44696, October 18, 1988, 166 SCRA 394, 398 (citing Blas v. Hon. Muoz-Palma, 4 SCRA 900).
19 CA Rollo (SP No. 44227), p. 172.
25 Supra., Espiritu case, at page 399.
26 Tayag v. Lacson, G.R. No. 134971, March 25, 2004.
27 Inter-Asia Services Corp. (International) v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106427, October 21, 1996, 263 SCRA 408, 417.
28 CA Rollo (SP No. 44227), p. 46.
29 Supra., Inter-Asia Services Corp. (International) case, at page 420.
30 CA Rollo (SP No. 44227), p. 56.
31 National Food Authority v. Court of Appeals, G.R. NOS. 115121-25, February 9, 1996, 253 SCRA 470, 479.
32 Heirs of Joaquin Asuncion v. Gervacio, Jr., G.R. No. 115741, March 9, 1999, 304 SCRA 322, 329.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.