Land Bank of the Philippines v.

Continental Watchman Agency 22 January 2004 Sandoval-Gutierrez Facts: Land Bank caused to be published in PDI an Invitation to Pre-qualify, inviting reputable security agencies to prequalify for security guard services in the LBP offices, properties etc nationwide. Continental Watchmen Agency Incorporated (CWAI) responded to the invitation and participated in the public bidding. In the bidding proper, all the pre-qualified security agencies submitted their individual sealed bid proposals to petitioner. Private respondent submitted a bid for 3 areas, all in Luzon. After all the bids were opened and evaluated, it turned out that respondent was the lowest bidder in those areas. However, the Bid Committee declared respondent to be disqualified because: o its bid price was below the monthly salary of a guard as prescribed by the Philippine Association of Detective and Protective Agency Operators Inc. and o It violated petitioners Bid Bulletin No. 1 requiring that its bid price should include night differential pay Private respondent filed with the RTC Manila a petition for injunction and damages with a prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction against Petitioner LBP. After the hearing, the trial court issued a TRO effective for 20 days. At the same time, the trial court set for hearing respondents application for preliminary injunction The trial court issued an Order directing the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction directing it to cease and desist from awarding the contract for Areas I, II and V in Luzon to any security agency, until further orders from the Court. MR of respondent was denied so it filed with the CA a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction and TRO alleging that the orders of the trial court were issued without jurisdiction. CA dismissed the petition saying that there was no grave abuse of discretion. The CA took note that the trial court conducted hearings before issuing a writ of preliminary injunction. Private respondent was even required to put a bond to answer for possible damages which may arise from the issuance of the writ. Hence, the present petition for certiorari. Petitioner submits that the CA, by dismissing its petition, compelled it to enter into a contract for security guard services with private respondent and as a result, the civil case was prematurely resolved. Private respondent countered that there was no grave abused of discretion because in the first place, the Order was issued after a hearing wherein the parties were given the opportunity to present their evidence and secondly, private respondent, being the lowest bidder, had a clear right to an injunction.

Issue: WON the issuance of a preliminary injunction disposed of the main case. Ratio/Ruling: NO All the requisites for the issuance of an injunctive writ were present here. Although petitioner presented evidence to rebut respondents assertions, those will be better assessed in the trial proper. The assailed injunctive writ is not a judgment on the merits of the case for a preliminary injunction is generally based solely on initial and incomplete evidence. The evidence submitted during the hearing of the incident is not conclusive or complete for only a sampling is needed to give the trial court an idea of the justification for the preliminary injunction pending the action of the case on the merits. As such, the opinion of the court which issued the order is interlocutory in nature and made before the trial on the merits is commenced or terminated. It does not necessarily proceed that when a writ of preliminary injunction is issued, a final injunction will follow. There are vital facts that have yet to be presented during the trial which may or may not be obtained during the hearing on the application of the injunctive writ. Clearly, petitioners contention that the TC and the CA had already disposed of the main case lacks merit. The sole object of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case has been heard. Here, after evaluating the evidence, the trial court held that justice would be better served if the status quo is preserved until the final determination of the merits of the case. There is nothing whimsical, arbitrary or capricious in such a ruling.

The issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction rests upon the sound discretion of the court. The trial courts have a wide discretion because conflicting claims in an application for a provisional writ more often than not involve a factual determination which is not the function of the appellate courts.

Petition dismissed.