Opinion
No. 04-05-00130-CV
Delivered and Filed: May 4, 2005.
Appeal from the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas, Trial Court No. 2005CVQ000232 D1, Honorable Manuel R. Flores, Judge Presiding.
Reversed and Rendered.
Sitting: Alma L. LÓPEZ, Chief Justice, Catherine STONE, Justice, Sandee Bryan MARION, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
City of Laredo Fire Fighters' and Police Officers' Civil Service Commission, Ray Garner, Conrado M. Hein, Jr., and Cesar Garza (collectively referred to herein as the "Commission") appeal the trial court's order granting a temporary injunction. The Commission contends that the order is void because it fails to detail the reasons for its issuance and the acts to be restrained and because it does not set a date for a trial on the merits. Ricardo Venegas and Andres Jimenez, Jr. respond that the Commission failed to object or otherwise point out the deficiencies in the order to the trial court; therefore, Venegas and Jimenez counter that the Commission has not preserved its complaint for appellate review.
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683 requires every order granting an injunction to "set forth the reasons for its issuance; shall be specific in terms; shall describe in reasonable detail and not by reference to the complaint or other document, the act or acts sought to be restrained." Tex. R. Civ. P. 683. In addition, every order granting a temporary injunction "shall include an order setting the cause for trial on the merits with respect to the ultimate relief sought." Id. The requirements of Rule 683 are mandatory, and an order granting a temporary injunction that does not meet them is subject to being declared void and dissolved. Qwest Comm. Corp. v. AT T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334, 337 (Tex. 2000); EOG Resources, Inc. v. Gutierrez, 75 S.W.3d 50, 53 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2002, no pet.). A party's right to have an order declared void based on its failure to comply with Rule 683 is not waived if the party fails to raise the complaint before the trial court, and this court may consider the issue even if it is not raised on appeal by the parties. EOG Resources, Inc., 75 S.W.3d at 52-53 n. 1; Hopper v. Safeguard Bus. Sys., Inc., 787 S.W.2d 624, 626 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1990, no writ); see also In re Garza, 126 S.W.3d 268, 270-71 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]) (rejecting argument that party waived requirements of Rule 683 because the party agreed to the order). Having reviewed the trial court's order, we agree with the Commission that the order fails to specify the reasons for its issuance and does not include a trial date. In addition, although the order specifically restrains the Commission from holding the February 23, 2005 promotional Captain's examination, the phrase "until full compliance is met pursuant to Texas Local Government Code, specifically §§ 143.028 and 143.029" is unclear as to whether any additional acts by the Commission are to be restrained.
Because the trial court's temporary injunction order fails to comply with Rule 683, we reverse the trial court's order and order it dissolved. See InterFirst Bank San Felipe, N.A. v. Paz Constr. Co., 715 S.W.2d 640, 641 (Tex. 1986) (declaring order void and ordering it dissolved).