6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly DOJ Circular No. 41 and WLO Nos. ASM-11-237 dated August 9, 2011, 2011-422 dated September 6, 2011, and 2011-573 dated October 27, 2011, subject to the following conditions, to wit: (i) The petitioners shall post a cash bond of Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00) payable to this Court within five (5) days from notice hereof. Failure to post the bond within the aforesaid period will result in the automatic lifting of the temporary restraining order; (ii) The petitioners shall appoint a legal representative common to both of them who will receive subpoena, orders and other legal processes on their behalf during their absence. The petitioners shall submit the name of the legal representative, also within five (5) days from notice hereof; and (iii) If there is a Philippine embassy or consulate in the place where they will be traveling, the petitioners shall inform said embassy or consulate by personal appearance or by phone of their whereabouts at all times;[34] On the very day of the issuance of the TRO, the petitioners tendered their compliance[35] with the conditions set forth in the Resolution dated November 15, 2011 of the Court and submitted the following: (1) a copy of Official Receipt No. 0030227SC-EP, showing the payment of the required cash bond of Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00);[36] (2) certification from the Fiscal and Management and Budget Office of the Supreme Court, showing that the cash bond is already on file with the office;[37] (3) special powers of attorney executed by the petitioners, appointing their respective lawyers as their legal representatives;[38] and (4) an undertaking to report to the nearest consular office in the countries where they will travel.[39] At around 8:00 p.m. on the same day, the petitioners proceeded to the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA), with an aide-de-camp and a private nurse, to take their flights to Singapore. However, the BI officials at NAIA refused to process their travel documents which ultimately resulted to them not being able to join their flights.[40] On November 17, 2011, GMA, through counsel, filed an Urgent Motion[41] for Respondents to Cease and Desist from Preventing Petitioner GMA from Leaving the Country. She strongly emphasized that the TRO issued by the Court was immediately executory and that openly defying the same is tantamount to gross disobedience and resistance to a lawful order of the Court.[42] Not long after, Miguel Arroyo followed through with an Urgent Manifestation,[43] adopting and repleading all the allegations in GMA's motion. On November 16, 2011, the respondents filed a Consolidated Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and/or to Lift TRO,[44] praying that the Court reconsider and set aside the TRO issued in the consolidated petitions until they are duly heard on the merits. In support thereof, they argue that the requisites for the issuance of a TRO and writ of preliminary injunction were not established by the petitioners. To begin with, the petitioners failed to present a clear and mistakable right which needs to be protected elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64165 6/70