Bengzon v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, the Secretary of Health and the Director of Food and Drugs, sought to annul a writ of preliminary injunction issued by the Court of Appeals. This injunction restrained them from enforcing BFAD Regulation No. 1 dated April 1, 1987, BFAD Regulation No. 1-A dated April 10, 1987, and an order dated February 1, 1988, which recalled and ordered the withdrawal of pharmaceutical preparations containing anti-inflammatory proteolytic enzymes, including Boie-Takeda Chemicals, Inc.'s (BOIE-TAKEDA) product "Danzen" tablet. BOIE-TAKEDA had been marketing "Danzen" since 1970. Procedural History: The recall was based on a U.S. FDA decision that oral anti-inflammatory proteolytic enzymes had not been shown to be effective. BOIE-TAKEDA requested reconsideration, arguing that serrapeptase was not reviewed by the U.S. FDA, that no hearing was held prior to the ban, and that voluminous data demonstrating serrapeptase's efficacy and safety existed and had been submitted. The request was denied. An appeal to the Secretary of Health was referred to the National Drug Committee (NDC), which also confirmed the recall. BOIE-TAKEDA then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction before the Court of Appeals, alleging denial of due process. The Court of Appeals issued a temporary restraining order and subsequently granted the writ of preliminary injunction. The Petition: The Secretary of Health filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, praying for the annulment of the writ of preliminary injunction, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction. Whether Boie-Takeda Chemicals, Inc. was denied due process in the administrative proceedings.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari and prohibition is denied. The Supreme Court affirmed the resolution of the Court of Appeals granting the writ of preliminary injunction.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the Court of Appeals committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction: The Supreme Court held that the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is an exercise of the court's sound discretion. The sole point of inquiry in a certiorari proceeding concerning such an issuance is whether the lower court committed a grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that as a general rule, it should refrain from interfering with the lower court's discretion in issuing such writs, except in cases of manifest abuse. In this case, the writ was issued to protect and preserve the right or license of Boie-Takeda to market its product "Danzen," which it had been doing for 17 years. The object of the writ was to preserve the status quo, which was the state of affairs before the withdrawal order was issued, meaning the product was registered and being sold under proper license. The Court found that the writ was granted after a hearing where both parties presented their arguments, and therefore, the Court of Appeals did not commit a grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ to preserve the status quo pending final determination of Boie-Takeda's petition. On whether Boie-Takeda Chemicals, Inc. was denied due process in the administrative proceedings: The Supreme Court explicitly stated that the matter of whether Boie-Takeda was denied due process in the administrative proceedings before the Secretary of Health, BFAD, NDC, and TACORP is not for them to determine in the present petition. This issue is still pending adjudication in the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 13859. The Supreme Court's role in this certiorari proceeding was limited to reviewing the propriety of the Court of Appeals' issuance of the preliminary injunction, not the merits of the underlying administrative case.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court will not interfere with a lower court's exercise of discretion in issuing a writ of preliminary injunction, except in cases of manifest abuse. The purpose of such a writ is to preserve the status quo pending final determination of the merits of the case.