G.R. No. 211146 - Concurring Opinion

G.R. No. 211146, April 11, 2023,
♦ Decision, J Lopez, [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion, Singh, [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion, Lazaro-Javier, [J]
♦ Dissenting Opinion, Caguioa, [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion, Leonen, [J]

SECRETARY PROCESO J. ALCALA, AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, AND AS CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY COUNCIL, AND THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER JOHN PHILLIP P. SEVILLA, PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE JUDGE CICERO D. JURADO, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 11, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IN MANILA, DANILO G. GALANG, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE ST. HILDEGARD GRAINS ENTERPRISES, AND IVY M. SOUZA, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE BOLD BIDDER MARKETING AND GENERAL MERCHANDISE, RESPONDENT.

In these consolidated cases, the petitioners Secretary Proceso J. Alcala, as Secretary of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and Chairperson of the National Food Authority (NFA), together with Bureau of Customs, represented by Commissioner John Phillip P. Sevilla (collectively, the petitioners) challenge:

In the ponencia, the Court granted the separate Petitions for Certiorari8 of the petitioners and nullified the assailed Orders.9 The Court found that none of the private respondents Ngo, Galang, and Souza (collectively, the private respondents) had any right in esse to import goods.10 There being no clear and unmistakable right to protect via the relief of injunction, the complaint for injunction of the private respondents cannot prosper.11 The Court also ruled that the private respondents do not stand to suffer any irreparable injury, as contemplated by the Rules of Court.12 As such, the assailed Orders of both Judge Carpio and Judge Jurado were null and void for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion.13

For preliminary injunctive relief to issue, the Court must find the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) the applicant must have a clear and unmistakable right to be protected, that is a right in esse; (2) there is a material and substantial invasion of such right; (3) there is an urgent need for the writ to prevent irreparable injury to the applicant; and (4) no other ordinary, speedy, and adequate remedy exists to prevent the infliction of irreparable injury.14

While admittedly the private respondents established the presence of the second and fourth requisites, the presence of the first and third requisites appears doubtful, at most.

To establish the existence of the first requisite, the claimant must prove a clear right that is both grounded on and enforceable by law. The Court defined this requisite in the case of Lim v. BPI Agricultural Development Bank:15

One of the requisites for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is that the applicant must have a right in esse. A right in esse is a clear and unmistakable right to be protected, one clearly founded on or granted by law or is enforceable as a matter of law. The existence of a right to be protected, and the acts against which the writ is to be directed are violative of said right must be established.16 (Underscoring omitted)

In this case, the private respondents may have established their ownership over the seized rice shipments, but they failed to establish the fact that they secured the necessary licenses to possess the same.

Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 4, as amended by P.D. Nos. 699 and 1485,17 vested the NFA with various functions relating to food security, which includes ensuring the stability of the supply and prices of rice. On March 28, 1996, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 817818 was passed, which expanded the powers of the NFA to establish rules for licensing, importing, and collection of fees and charges for rice importation:

With this express rule-making power, the NFA issued the questioned Memorandum Circular (MC), NFA MC No. AO-2K13-03-003, which requires rice importers to secure rice import permits before importation. This rice import permit must be distinguished from the Grains Business License, a license required under Regulation II of the Revised Rules and Regulations of the National Food Authority in Grains Businesses,20 the pertinent provisions of which provides:

Here, the private respondents failed to show that they possessed either of these requirements. These are conditions sine qua non to the importation of rice in our country. That the private respondents performed acts relating to importation without the requisite authority squarely contradicts the finding that they proved their "clear and unmistakable right" to the rice shipments.

For the third requisite, the operative phrase is "irreparable injury." As this Court has repeatedly defined, injury is considered irreparable if there is no standard by which the same can be measured with reasonable accuracy. The injury must be such that its pecuniary value cannot be estimated, and thus, cannot fairly compensate for the loss.21 As held in the case of SM Investments Corporation v. Mac Graphics Carranz International Corp.:22

In this case, while the private respondents Ngo and Galang established that they were at risk of losing the rice shipments, the amount corresponding to the seized goods could be easily calculated. As a matter of fact, Ngo testified during the proceedings in the RTC as to the amount not only of the rice shipment, but also of the demurrage and storage costs.24

The burden to prove his or her right to injunctive relief is always with the claimant. Hence, if the claimant cannot discharge this burden, then it should not receive judicial relief. It cannot be overemphasized that injunction is an extraordinary remedy.25

Therefore, I fully agree with the revised ponencia that the private respondents failed to establish their entitlement to the writ issued by the RTC.

I respectfully CONCUR and vote to GRANT the Petitions for Certiorari filed by the petitioners Secretary Proceso J. Alcala, as Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Chairperson of the National Food Authority, together with Bureau of Customs, represented by Commissioner John Phillip P. Sevilla. The assailed Order, dated December 12, 2013, and the Order, dated December 13, 2013, as well as the December 13, 2013 Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued by the public respondent Judge Emmanuel C.1aшphi1 Carpio of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, Davao City, in Civil Case No. 35,354-2013, in favor of private respondent Joseph M. Ngo; and the Order,26 dated January 23, 2014, the Order27 dated February 27, 2014, and the Amended Order,28 dated February 28, 2014, together with the January 24, 2014 Writ of Preliminary Injunction29 issued by the public respondent Judge Cicero D. Jurado, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court, Branch, Manila, in Civil Case No. CV-14-131261, in favor of the private respondent Danilo G. Galang, owner of the sole proprietorship St. Hildegard Grains Enterprises, and the private respondent Ivy M. Souza, proprietor of the Bold Bidder Marketing and General Merchandise are REVERSED.