Diokno v. Reyes
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involved a petitioner seeking a preliminary injunction against respondents. The petitioner desired to prohibit certain actions by the respondents and ultimately sought a perpetual injunction. 2. Procedural History: The petitioner first filed a petition for a preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Batangas. This petition was denied by the court on January 3, 1907. The petitioner excepted to this order and announced an intention to appeal. A bill of exceptions was subsequently presented and certified by the judge of the lower court on January 14, 1907. This bill of exceptions was then filed with the Supreme Court on January 15, 1907. 3. The Petition: The petitioner filed an ex parte petition with the Supreme Court, seeking a preliminary injunction. This petition was based on the assertion that an action was pending on appeal between the same parties. The petitioner's request for a preliminary injunction was in aid of the remedy sought by the appeal. However, the Supreme Court examined the bill of exceptions and determined that the order from which the petitioner attempted to appeal was not a final order, but rather an order solely concerning the right to a preliminary injunction, which is not an appealable order.
Issue(s)
Whether the order of the lower court denying the preliminary injunction is a final order from which an appeal may be taken under Section 123 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions. Whether the Supreme Court may grant a preliminary injunction in aid of an appeal from an order denying a preliminary injunction.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the prayer of the petitioner for a preliminary injunction.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the order of the lower court denying the preliminary injunction is a final order from which an appeal may be taken: The Court examined the bill of exceptions and found that the only question presented to the lower court on January 3, 1907, was the right of the plaintiff to a preliminary injunction. The prayer for a perpetual injunction was a subsequent request that could not be complied with without the defendants' presence. Therefore, the order of the lower court only related to the question of the preliminary injunction. The Court reiterated its consistent holding that an order granting or denying a preliminary injunction is not an appealable order. Appeals based on such orders are denied by the Court. This principle was established in prior cases such as Go-Quico vs. The City of Manila, Dy Chuan Leng et al. vs Ambler, and Compañia General de Tobacos vs. Tupiño et al. On the issue of whether the Supreme Court may grant a preliminary injunction in aid of an appeal from an order denying a preliminary injunction: Since the order denying the preliminary injunction is not an appealable order, an appeal based upon it cannot be sustained. Consequently, a preliminary injunction cannot be granted in aid of such an appeal. The petition for a preliminary injunction was presented ex parte, and the examination of the bill of exceptions confirmed that the lower court's order was not a final, appealable one. Therefore, the Supreme Court denied the petitioner's prayer.
Main Doctrine
An order granting or denying a preliminary injunction is not an appealable order.