THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 157315 : December 1, 2010

CITY GOVERNMENT OF BUTUAN and CITY MAYOR LEONIDES THERESA B. PLAZA, the latter in her personal capacity and as representative of her co-defendant, Petitioners, v. CONSOLIDATED BROADCASTING SYSTEM (CBS), INC., doing business under the name and style “DXBR” Bombo Radyo Butuan, represented by its Manager, Norberto P. Pagaspas, and HON. ROSARITO F. DABALOS, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, BRANCH 2, OF AGUSAN DEL NORTE AND BUTUAN CITY, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

BERSAMIN, J.:

Petitioners City Government of Butuan and City Mayor LeonidesTheresa B. Plaza (petitioners) appeal the adverse decision dated October 28,2002 (dismissing their petition for certiorari and prohibition to challenge the grant by the trial judge of the applicationfor a writ of preliminary injunction after reconsidering his earlierself-inhibition),¹ and the resolution dated January 29,2003 (denying their motion forreconsideration), both promulgated by the Court of Appeals (CA) inC.A.-G.R. SP No. 69729 entitled CityGovernment of Butuan and City Mayor Leonides Theresa B. Plaza, the latter inher personal capacity and as representative of her co-defendant v. ConsolidatedBroasting System (CBS), Inc., doing business under the name and style "DXBR"Bombo Radyo Butuan, represented by its Manager, Norberto P. Pagaspas, and theHon. Rosarito F. Dabalos, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 2, of Agusan del Norteand Butuan City.

Antecedents^2cra

In February, 2002,CityMayorPlaza(MayorPlaza) wrote to the SangguniangPanlungsod ofButuanCity to solicit itssupport for her decision to deny the application for mayor's permit of respondentBombo Radyo/Consolidated Broasting System (CBS), and to eventually closedown CBS's radio station. She justified her decision by claiming that CBS's operatingits broasting business within the Arujiville Subdivision, a residential area, had violated the City's zoning ordinance. Her letter pertinently reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In1994, Bombo Radyo/Consolidated Broasting System manifested their intentionto operate on their current site at Arujiville Subdivision which is a residential area. They were informed thatthey cannot situate their business in the area as it violates our zoningordinance. However, they have pleaded and was agreeable to operate in the areaby virtue of a Temporary Use Permit (TUP) xxx.

The TUP allowed them to operate in the areabut only for a very limited period. As a matter of fact, the TUP was good onlyfor one year, which can be renewed every year for a maximum of five (5) yearsor until 1999. Thus, right from the beginning they have been informed andforewarned that they cannot operate in the area forever and that they have torelocate to a proper area.

BomboRadyo renewed its TUP only in 1995 and 1996. They have failed to renew theirTUP up to today.

Thisoffice has received numerous complaints against Bombo Radyo for violation ofprivate rights, inciting people to go rise against the government, maliciousimputations, insinuations against people not of their liking, false orfabricated news, etc. The list is so long to enumerate. Copies of thepetitions, manifestos from various groups is hereto attached for your perusal.

Thus,for violation of the city zoning ordinance, the expiration of their TUP, whichwas never renewed since 1997, failure to secure ECC and the numerous complaintsagainst the station of the residents within the immediate vicinity of theirpremises and the threat they are causing to the peace and order of the City, Ihave decided to deny their application for a mayor's permit and thereafter toclose the radio station.

Inview of the foregoing premises, I am forwarding this matter to the SangguniangPanlungsod to solicit your resolution of support on the matter.

Thisis not a decision calculated to deprived (sic) Radio Bombo of its freedom ofspeech or expression. This is just a simply matter of whether or not Radyo Bombo has complied with existing laws and ordinances.

Thereupon,the Sangguninang Panlungsod adopted Resolution-057-2002 "to strongly support the decision of the City Mayor to deny theapplication of Consolidated Broasting System Development Corporation (Bombo Radyo-Butuan) for a Mayor's Permit and thereafter close the radio station." ^3cra

OnFebruary 18, 2002, the City's licensing officerserved on CBS's station manager a final/lastnotice of violation and demand to cease and desist illegal operation, with awarning that he would recommend the closure of its business in case of non-compliance.

OnFebruary 19, 2002,CBS and its manager, Norberto Pagaspas, filed a complaint for prohibition, mandamus, and damages against thepetitioners in the Regional Trial Court in Butuan City (RTC),⁴cra with prayer for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and writ of preliminaryinjunction to restrain the petitioners from closing its station, or from disturbingand preventing its business operations. The case, docketed as Civil Case No. 5193, was raffled to Branch 2, presided by Judge Rosarito P. Dabalos.

OnFebruary20, 2002, Judge Dabalos voluntarily inhibited and directed thereturn of Civil Case No. 5193 to the Office of the Clerk of Court for re-raffle.⁵ Hecited the circumstances that might affect his objectivity and impartiality in resolving the controversy as his justification, to wit:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

xxx

a)That the undersigned was the object of its (plaintiff's) attacks and criticismwhich are judgmental and not inquisitorial in the comments over the air;

b)That the undersigned was shouted at disrespectfully by one of plaintiff'sreporters/news gatherers in the vicinity of the Hall of Justice;

c)That plaintiff's commentaries are makingpronouncements on legal matters, substantive and procedural, based on itsperception and not on laws;

d)That in its commentaries in attacking public officials as well as privateindividuals, words which are disrespectful and indecent are used.

and the net effectand result of its commentaries over the air causes confusion on the minds ofthe public, including the young that the court and government offices andpublic officials will lose their credibility and respect which are due them.

Thecourt is aware of press freedom is enshrined in our constitution but suchfreedom should not be abused because in every right there is a concomitantobligation.

Lettherefore this case be returned immediately to the office [of the] Clerk ofCourt VI for re-raffling.

SO ORDERED.

On thesame day, Judge Victor Tomaneng, Presiding Judge of Branch 33, issued an order alsoinhibiting himself from handling Civil Case No. 5193, and in his capacity asVice Executive Judge (in lieu of Executive Judge Cipriano B. Alvizo, Jr., thenon sick leave) directed the assignment of Civil Case No. 5193 to Branch 5 without raffle,^6cralaw viz:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

xxxConsidering that the Executive Judge Hon. Cipriano B. Alvizo, the PresidingJudge of RTC-Branch 4 and Acting-Designate Presiding Judge of RTC-Branch 3, butwho is now in Cebu City for medical treatment, it would be impractical toinclude his courts in the re-raffling of cases for the reason that the case isfor prohibition, mandamus, injunction, etc., that needs immediate action. Theherein Vice-Executive Judge who is the Presiding Judge of RTC-Branch 33, couldnot also act on this case on the ground of 'delicadeza' considering thatdefendant Hon. Mayor Leonides Theresa B. Plaza is his 'kumadre' plus the factthat before becoming judge he was the legal counsel of the LDP party here inButuan City, in the election of 1992 and 1995, which is the political party ofthe Plazas. RTC-Branch 1, being the exclusive Family Court cannot also beincluded in any raffle.

Inview of the foregoing, and on the ground of expediency, the Clerk of Court isordered to send this case to RTC-Branch 5, without raffle anymore, it being the only practical available court in this jurisdiction as of this moment.

Civil Case No. 5193 was forwarded to Branch 5, presided byJudge Augustus L. Calo, who recused because his wife had been recentlyappointed byMayorPlaza to the City's LegalOffice. Judge Calo ordered the immediate return of the case to the Clerk of Court for forwarding to Vice Executive Judge Tomaneng.

Withoutany other judge to handle the case, Judge Tomaneng formally returned Civil Case No. 5193 to Judge Dabalos, statingin his letter that Judge Dabalos' reason for inhibition did not amount to aplausible ground to inhibit. Judge Tomaneng instructed Judge Dabalos to hear the case unless the Supreme Court approved the inhibition.^7cra

On February 21, 2002, Judge Tomaneng issued a TRO,⁸ to wit:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

TheCourt believes that there is a need to maintain the status quo until all theother issues in the complaint shall have been duly heard and determined withoutnecessarily implying that plaintiff is entitled to the prayers for injunction.The Court hereby resolves in the meantime to grant a temporary restrainingorder.

WHEREFORE,defendants City Gov't of Butuan and City Mayor Leonides Theresa B. Plaza, theirattorneys, agents, employees, police authorities and/or any person acting uponthe Mayor's order and instruction under her authority are hereby enjoined tocease, desist and to refrain from closing or padlocking RADYO BOMBO or frompreventing, disturbing, or molesting its business operations, including but notlimited to the use and operation of its building, structures and broastingfacilities, and the ingress or egress of its employees therein.

Asthis Court cannot issue a seventy-two (72) hour Temporary Restraining Orderbecause of the incoming delay onMonday, February 25, 2002, a temporary restraining orderis hereby issued effective for twenty (20) days from issuance (Sec. 5, Rule 58,1997 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure).

Meanwhile,let this case be set for summary hearing onMarch 11, 2002 at8:30 in the morning to resolve the pending application forinjunction and for the defendants to show cause why the same shall not begranted.

ITIS SO ORDERED.

OnFebruary 25, 2002, the petitioners filed an urgent motion to lift or dissolve temporary restraining order in Branch 2 (sala of Judge Dabalos).

OnFebruary 26, 2002, Judge Dabalos referred hisorder of inhibition in Civil Case No. 5193 to the Court Administrator for consideration,with a request for the designation of another Judge not stationed inButuanCityand Agusan del Norte to handle the case.^9cra

Consequently, CBS requested the Court to designate anotherjudge to hear its application for the issuance of a writ of preliminaryinjunction, the hearing of which Judge Tomaneng had set on March 11, 2002.^10cra

In the meanwhile, or onMarch 8, 2002, the petitioners filed their answerto the complaint, alleging affirmative and special defenses and praying for thedismissal of the complaint, the lifting of the TRO, the denial of the prayerfor preliminary injunction, and the granting of their counterclaims for moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses.

During the hearing on March 11, 2002 of CBS's application for theissuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, at which the petitioners andtheir counsel did not appear, CBS's counsel manifested that he was desistingfrom his earlier request with the Court for the designation of another judge tohear Civil Case No. 5193. Judge Dabalos noted the manifestation but reset thehearing of the application for preliminary injunction onMarch 12, 2002, to give the petitionersan opportunity to show cause why the writ prayed for should not issue. For thepurpose of the resetting, Judge Dabalos caused a notice of hearing to be served on the petitioners.^11cra

Upon receipt of the notice of hearing, the petitioners movedto quash the notice and prayed that the TRO be lifted, insisting that JudgeDabalos had already lost his authority to act on Civil Case No. 5193 by virtue of his inhibition.^12cra

Nonetheless, Civil Case No. 5193 was called onMarch 12, 2002. The partiesand their respective counsel appeared. At the close of the proceedings on that date, Judge Dabalos granted CBS's prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction,¹³ to wit:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

WHEREFORE,in view of the foregoing as the defendants did not introduce any evidence inspite of the order of the Court to show cause why no writ of preliminaryinjunction be issued and the repeated directive of the court in open court forthe defendants to present evidence which the defendants firmly refused to do soon flimsy grounds, the Court resolves to issue a writ of preliminary injunctionas the complaint under oath alleges that plaintiff is a grantee of a franchisefrom the Congress of the Philippines and the act threatened to be committed bythe defendants curtail the constitutional right of freedom of speech of theplaintiff which the Court finds that it should be looked into, the defendants'refusal to controvert such allegations by evidence deprived the Court [of] thechance to be guided by such evidence to act accordingly that it left the courtno alternative but to grant the writ prayed for, the City Government of Butuanand City Mayor Leonides Theresa B. Plaza, their attorneys, agents, employees,police authorities and/or any person acting upon the Mayor's order orinstructions or under her authority are hereby enjoined to cease and desist andto refrain from closing or padlocking RADYO BOMBO or from preventing,disturbing or molesting its business operations, including but not limited tothe use and operation of its building, structures, broasting facilities andthe ingress or egress of its employees therein upon plaintiff's putting up abond in the amount of P200,000.00 duly approved by this court which injunctionbond shall be executed in favor of the defendants to answer for whateverdamages which the defendants may sustain in connection with or arising from theissuance of this writ if, after all the court will finally adjudge thatplaintiff is not entitled thereto.

Thisorder is without prejudice to the findings of the court after a formal hearingor a full blown trial.

Furnishcopies of this order to the Hon. Supreme Court and the Hon. CourtAdministrator.

SOORDERED.^14cra

FollowingCBS's posting of P200,000.00 as the required injunction bond, Branch 2issued the writ of preliminary injunction onMarch 15, 2002,¹⁵ commanding and directing the provincial sheriff to:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

xxx forthwith enjoin the City Government ofButuan and the Hon. City Mayor Leonides Theresa B. Plaza, their attorneys,agents, employees, police authorities and/or any person acting upon the mayor'sorder or instruction or under her authority to cease and desist and to refrainfrom closing or padlocking RADIO BOMBO or from preventing disturbing ormolesting its business operations, including the use and operation of itsbuilding, structures, broasting facilities and the ingress and egress of itsemployees therein. Copies of the writ of preliminary injunction, bond and otherpertinent documents thereto be served on the defendants and thereafter make areturn of your service of this writ within the period required by law and theRules of Court.

Thus, thepetitioners commenced in the CA a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition (with prayer for TRO or writ ofpreliminary injunction).

The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari and prohibition upon a finding that Judge Dabalos had committedno grave abuse of discretion in acting upon CBS's application for preliminaryinjunction, given the peculiar circumstances surrounding the raffling andassignment of Civil Case No. 5193, and the urgent need to resolve theapplication for preliminary injunction due to the expiration of JudgeTomaneng's TRO by March 13, 2002. TheCA held that the writ of preliminary injunction had properly issued, because thepetitioners had threatened to defeat CBS's existing franchise to operate itsradio station inButuan City by not issuing the permit for its broast business.

Issues

Hence, this appeal via petition for review on certiorari , with the petitioners contending that:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary^16cra

I.THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT RESPONDENT JUDGE ROSARITO F.DABALOS ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN, ON MARCH 12, 2002, WITHOUTSUFFICIENT NOTICE TO PETITIONERS, HE AGAIN TOOK COGNIZANCE OF AND RE-ASSUMEDJURISDICTION OVER CIVIL CASE NO. 5193 AFTER HE HAD ALREADY EFFECTIVELYINHIBITED HIMSELF FROM HEARING THE SAME IN TWO EARLIER ORDERS HE HAD ISSUEDDATED FEBRUARY 20 ANDFEBRUARY26, 2002 RESPECTIVELY.

II.ASSUMING THAT RESPONDENT JUDGE ROSARITO DABALOS COULD VALIDLY RE-ASSUMEJURISDICTION OVER CIVIL CASE NO. 5193 AFTER HE HAD EARLIER ISSUED TWO ORDERSVOLUNTARILY INHIBITING HIMSELF FROM HEARING SAID CASE, THE COURT OF APPEALSERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT RESPONDENT COURT ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETIONIN ISSUING A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WITHOUT REQUIRING PRIVATERESPONDENT TO PRESENT EVIDENCE TO SHOW WHETHER SAID PRIVATE RESPONDENT HAS ACLEAR RIGHT THERETO.

Ruling

The appeal lacks merit. We find that the CA did not commit any error in upholding the questioned orders of the RTC.

I

Judge Dabalos lawfully re-assumed jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 5193

In itsdecision, the CA ruled that Judge Dabalos did not gravely abuse his discretionin re-assuming jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 5193 in the light of the obtaining circumstances cogently set forth in its assailed decision, to wit:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary^17cra

Seemingly, petitioners lost sight of thereality that after the respondent judge issued his order of inhibition anddirected the return of the case to the Office of the Clerk of Court forre-raffle to another judge, Vice-Executive Judge Victor A. Tomaneng, notingthat there is no other judge to handle the case, directed the return thereof tothe public respondent in view of the extreme urgency of the preliminary relieftherein prayed for. Under the circumstances then obtaining, the respondentjudge could do no less but to act thereon. So it is that he proceeded with thescheduled hearing on the application for preliminary injunction onMarch 11, 2002 andthereafter reset it for continuation the following day to afford thepetitioners an opportunity to oppose the application and show cause why thewrit prayed for should not issue. The urgency of the action demanded of therespondent judge is further accentuated by the fact that the TRO issued byJudge Tomaneng was then about to expire on March 13, 2002, not to mention thecircumstance that Executive Judge Cipriano B. Alvizo, Jr., who happened to bearound, advised the respondent judge to resolve the issues to the best of hisdiscretion. xxx

Thepetitioners disagree, and insist that Judge Dabalos lost the authority to actupon CBS's application for preliminary injunction by virtue of his priorself-inhibition from hearing Civil Case No. 5193.

We cannot sustain the petitioners' insistence.

Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rulesof Court, which contains the rule on inhibition and disqualification ofjudges, states:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Section 1. Disqualification of judges.- No judge orjudicial officer shall sit in any case in which he, or his wife or child, ispecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise, or in which heis related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity oraffinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree, computed according to therules of civil law, or in which he has been executor, administrator, guardian,trustee or counsel, or in which he has presided in any inferior court when hisruling or decision is the subject of review, without the written consent of allparties-in-interest, signed by them and entered upon the record.

A judge may, in theexercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just and valid reasons other than those mentioned above.

The self-inhibition of Judge Dabalos was one taken in accordance withthe second paragraph of Section 1. Our resolution herein turns, therefore, on theproper interpretation and application of the second paragraph.

The second paragraph of Section 1 (unlike the first paragraph) does notexpressly enumerate the specific grounds for inhibition. This means that the determinationof the grounds is left to the sound discretion of the judge, who must discern withonly his or her conscience as guide on what may be just and valid reasons forself-inhibition. The vesting of discretion necessarily proceeds from thereality that there may be many and different grounds for a judge to recuse froma case, and such grounds cannot all be catalogued in the Rules of Court.Thus did the Court cogently point out in Gutang v. Court of Appeals:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary^18cra

xxx The import ofthe rule on the voluntary inhibition of judges is that the decision on whetheror not to inhibit is left to the sound discretion and conscience of the trialjudge based on his rational and logical assessment of the circumstancesprevailing in the case brought before him. It makes clear to the occupants of the Bench that outside of pecuniaryinterest, relationship or previous participation in the matter that calls foradjudication, there might be other causes that could conceivably erode thetrait of objectivity, thus calling for inhibition. That is to betray a sense ofrealism, for the factors that lead to preference or predilections are many andvaried.

In his case, Judge Dabalos clearly discerned after the return of Civil CaseNo. 5193 to him by the Vice Executive Judge that his self-doubtabout his ability to dispense justice in Civil Case No. 5193 generated bythe airing of criticisms against him and other public officials by CBS'scommentators and reporters would not ultimately affect his objectivityand judgment. Such re-assessment of the ground for his self-inhibition, absenta showing of any malice or other improper motive on his part, could not beassailed as the product of an unsound exercise of his discretion. That, it seemsto us, even the petitioners conceded, their objection being based only onwhether he could still re-assume jurisdiction of Civil Case No. 5193.

We hold that although a trial judgewho voluntarily inhibits loses jurisdiction to hear a case,¹⁹ he or she may decide to reconsiderthe self-inhibition and re-assume jurisdiction after a re-assessment of thecircumstances giving cause to the inhibition. The discretion to reconsideracknowledges that the trial judge is in the better position to determine theissue of inhibition, and a reviewing tribunal will not disturb the exercise ofthat discretion except upon a clear and strong finding of arbitrariness orwhimsicality.²⁰ Thus, Judge Dabalos're-assumption of jurisdiction was legally tenable, having come from his seizingthe opportunity to re-assess the circumstances impelling his self-inhibition uponbeing faced with the urgent need to hear and resolve CBS's application forpreliminary injunction. Such action was commendable on his part, given that theseries of self-inhibitions by the other RTC Judges had left no competent judge inthe station to hear and resolve the application. It can even be rightly saidthat a refusal by Judge Dabalos to re-assess and reconsider might have negatedhis sacred and sworn duty as a judge to dispense justice.

In thisconnection, the urgency for the RTC to hear and resolve the application forpreliminary injunction factually existed. In fact, CBS had communicated it tothe Court in its letter datedMarch 5, 2002,²¹ to wit:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

If not for the temporary restraining order issued onFebruary 21, 2002 by the Honorable Judge VICTOR A. TOMANENG, Vice-ExecutiveJudge and Presiding Judge of Branch 33 of said court xxx violent confrontationswould have continued between supporters of plaintiff RADIO BOMBO BUTUAN, on theone hand, and the loyalists of City Mayor LEONIDES THERESA PLAZA (includingsome city employees) led by the Mayor herself and her husband, former MayorDEMOCRITO PLAZA II, on the other hand.

xxx

As set forth in the temporaryrestraining order, the hearing on the application for a writ of preliminaryinjunction is set onMonday,March 11, 2002 because the twenty-day lifetime of the temporaryrestraining order would expire onMarch 13, 2002. A repeat of the violent scenario ofFebruary 21 may occur unless the application is heard as scheduled by aRegional Trial Court Judge who had not inhibited himself. xxx

Verily,Judge Dabalos' decision to hear the application for preliminary injunctionpending the Court's resolution of the query on whether or not another Judge sittingoutside the City of Butuan should take cognizance of Civil Case No. 5193 did not constitute or equate to arbitrariness orwhimsicality. He had reasonable grounds to do so in the context of thetight circumstances that had developed in Civil Case No. 5193 following his self-inhibition. Surely, hisdecision to reconsider did not proceed from passion or whim, but from hisfaithful adherence to his solemn oath to do justice to every man. He thereby neitherviolated any law or canon of judicial conduct, nor abused his juridicalauthority.

II.

Petitioners to adduce evidence after granting of TRO

The petitioners submit that Judge Dabalos improperly resolvedCBS's application for preliminary injunction by not first requiring the applicant to adduce evidence in support of the application.

We do not agree with the petitioners.

Apreliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action orproceeding prior to the judgment or final order requiring a party or a court,an agency, or a person to refrain from a particular a particular act or acts.²² It may also require the performance of a particular act or acts, in which case itis known as a preliminary mandatory injunction.²³ Thus, a prohibitoryinjunction is one that commands aparty to refrain from doing a particular act, while a mandatoryinjunction commands the performance ofsome positive act to correct a wrong in the past.^24cra

As with all equitableremedies, injunction must be issued only at the instance of a party whopossesses sufficient interest in or title to the right or the property soughtto be protected.²⁵ It is proper only when the applicantappears to be entitled to the relief demanded in the complaint,²⁶ which must aver the existence of theright and the violation of the right,²⁷ or whose averments must in theminimum constitute a prima facie showing of a right to the finalrelief sought.²⁸ Accordingly,the conditions for the issuance of the injunctive writ are: (a) that the right to be protected exists prima facie; (b) that the act sought to be enjoined is violative of that right;and (c) that there is an urgent andparamount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. Aninjunction will not issue to protect a right not in esse, or a right whichis merely contingent and may never arise; or to restrain an act which does notgive rise to a cause of action; or to prevent the perpetration of an actprohibited by statute.²⁹ Indeed, a right, to be protected byinjunction, means a right clearly founded on or granted by law or isenforceable as a matter of law.^30cra

While it is true that CBS was notrequired to present evidence to prove its entitlement to the injunctive writ,the writ was nonetheless properly granted on the basis of the undisputed factsthat CBS was a grantee of a franchise from the Legislature, and that the acts complainedagainst (i.e., refusal of the Mayor'spermit and resulting closure of the radio station) were imminent and, unlessenjoined, would curtail or set at naught CBS's rights under the franchise. Inthis regard, worthy of mention is that even the Vice Executive Judge, acknowledging that CBS had stood to suffer grave injusticeand irreparable injury should its radio station suffer closure, had issued ex parte the TRO.

It was error on the part of thepetitioners to insist that the evidence of CBS should have first been requiredbefore Judge Dabalos issued the writ of preliminary injunction. Rule 58 of the Rules of Court clearly lays the burdenon the shoulders of the petitioners, as the parties against whom the TRO wasissued, to show cause why the application for the writ of preliminaryinjunction should not issue,³¹ thus:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Section5. Preliminary injunction not grantedwithout notice; exception. - No preliminary injunction shall be grantedwithout hearing and prior notice to the party or person sought to be enjoined.If it shall appear from facts shown by affidavits or by the verifiedapplication that great or irreparable injury would result to the applicantbefore the matter can be heard on notice, the court to which the applicationfor preliminary injunction was made, may issue ex parte a temporary restraining order to be effective only for aperiod of twenty (20) days from service on the party or person sought to be enjoined,except as herein provided. Within thesaid twenty-day period, the court must order said party or person to showcause, at a specified time and place, why the injunction should not be granted,determine within the same period whether or not the preliminary injunctionshall be granted, and accordingly issue the corresponding order.

xxx

In fine, Judge Dabalos properly directed the petitioners tofirst present evidence why the application for the writ of preliminary injunctionshould not be granted. By their refusal to comply with the directive to showcause by presenting their evidence to that effect, the petitioners could blameno one but themselves.

WHEREFORE, we deny the petitionfor review on certiorari , andaffirm the decision datedOctober 28, 2002 promulgated by the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. SP No. 69729.

Costsof suit to be paid by the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
Chairperson

ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice

MARIA LOURDES P. ARANAL-SERENO
Associate Justice

A T T E S T A T I O N

I attest that the conclusions in theabove Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
Chairperson

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIIIof the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify thatthe conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice