PROVISIONAL REMEDIES (Rule 58)

21

RULE 58
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Section 1. Preliminary
injunction
defined; classes. - A
preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an
action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order, requiring
a party or a court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular
act or acts. It may also require the performance of a particular act
or acts, in which case it shall be known as preliminary mandatory
injunction.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION is an order granted at any stage of an action or

proceeding prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a party or a court, agency or a
person to refrain from a particular act or acts or to require the performance of a
particular act or acts.
- is sometimes called strong arm of equity.
Q: What are the changes there?
A: The word " final order" was not found in the 1964 Rules. And then, the new Rule
says, you can issue a writ of preliminary injunction not only against a party but even to
a court or agency.
TYPES OF INJUNCTION:
1. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
2. FINAL INJUNCTION
2 TYPES OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION:
1. PREVENTIVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
2. MANDATORY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Q: What is a preventive preliminary injunction?
A: A preventive preliminary injunction is one which requires a person to refrain from
doing a particular act or acts.
[The Ten Commandments is a preventive injunction. Huh! (,)]
Q: What is a mandatory preliminary injunction?
A: A mandatory preliminary injunction is one which requires a person to perform a
particular act or acts.
Q: What is a FINAL INJUNCTION?
A: A final injunction is one which is included in the judgment as the relief or part of the
relief granted as the result of the case. Final injunction is the one mentioned section 9
of this Rule --- tapos na ang kaso.
Section 9: When final injunction granted. - If after the trial of the action it
appears that the applicant is entitled to have the act or acts complained of
permanently enjoined, the court shall grant a final injunction perpetually
restraining the party or person enjoined from the commission or
continuance of the act or acts or confirming the preliminary mandatory
injunction.
That is not a provisional remedy. That is the main relief. So, the preliminary injunction
becomes now total and permanent.
So, if I want to permanently stop you from doing an act I will have to file a case for
injunction, which is a main action for injunction.
And if I want to pray, while the case is going on that you should be also prevented from
doing the same act---I have to apply for a writ of preliminary injunction. Kaya sa civil,
Property of

LAKAS ATENISTA

PROVISIONAL REMEDIES (Rule 58)

22

it is worded this way: Civil case for injunction with writ of preliminary injunction. The
injunction is the final injunction and the writ is the provisional one. So the former is the
main relief while the latter is the temporary relief.
Purpose of preliminary injunction: To maintain the status quo between the parties in
relation to the subject matter. So, to maintain the status quo.
STATUS QUO is the last peaceable and uncontested status of the
preceded the pending case from the controversy.

parties which

Because status quo may be preceded like, the squatters entering your land, so nasa
loob na sila. So you ask for preliminary injunction--- so status quo. Sabi ng mga
squatters, status quo--- we will remain in the land!
Of course, that is not the purpose. The purpose is to bring you out because the status
quo is the last peaceable, uncontested status
of the parties which proceeded the
pending action or prior to the case.
Even in the labor case, magulo iyan eh, yong last peaceable and uncontested status.
An example of injunction in Labor case, iyong assumption of jurisdiction by the
Secretary of Labor. In which the Secretary of Labor assumes jurisdiction in cases of
national interest.
Ano iyon ? When there is a threatened strike --- injunction! And if there is already a
strike, strike is lifted and the employee must have to go back to work and the
management will accept those employees under the terms and conditions before the
strike.
Section 2. Who may grant preliminary injunction. - A preliminary
injunction may be granted by the court where the action or
proceeding is pending. If the action or proceeding is pending in the
Court of Appeals or in the Supreme Court, it may be issued by said
court or any member thereof.
Q: Who may grant a preliminary injunction?
A: 1. The court where the case is pending.
2. CA.
3. SC.
EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE AUTHORITY (EPZA) vs. CHR
April 14, 1992
FACTS: When ordered to stop, the occupants of the export processing
zone authority in the EPZA land where the occupants filed a case in the
CHR (Commission on Human Rights), the CHR issued a writ of
injunction or restraining order against the supposed violators of
human rights to compel them to cease and desist from continuing the
acts complained of, and the authority of the CHR to issue an injunction
was challenged. Does it have an authority?
And the CHR said, yes---because under the Constitution the principal
function of the CHR is not merely limited in having investigation. It is
mandated among others to provide appropriate legal measures for the
protection of the human rights of all persons within the Philippines as
well Filipino abroad. And to provide for preventive measures and legal aid
services to the under privileged whose human rights have been violated.
ISSUE: Does the CHR have the power to issue a writ of injunction?
HELD: The CHR is wrong because as earlier ruled in the case of CARIO
VS. CHR, the CHR is not a court of justice and it is not even a quasijudicial body. The Constitutional provisions cited may not be construed
to compel jurisdiction of the CHR to issue restraining order or injunction
because if that was the intention the Constitution would have especially
said so.
Jurisdiction is conferred only by the Constitution and by the law and is
never derived by implication.
Q: What is the meaning of the term preventive measures or legal
Property of

LAKAS ATENISTA

PROVISIONAL REMEDIES (Rule 58)

23

measures which the CHR is allowed to provide under the Constitution?

A: Evidently, that phrase refers to extra judicial and judicial remedies
including a preliminary writ of injunction which the CHR has to seek
from the proper courts on behalf of the victims of human right violations.
So, the CHR not being a court of justice has no jurisdiction to issue the
writ because under Section 2 of Rule 58, "A writ of preliminary
injunction may only be issued by a judge or justices of CA or SC."
Section 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction.-A
preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established:
a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and
the whole part of such relief consists in restraining the
commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of,
or in requiring the performance of an act or acts either for a
limited period or perpetually;
b) That the commission, continuance, or non-performance of the
act or acts complained of during the litigation would
probably work in justice to the applicant; or
c) That a party, court, agency, or a person is doing, threatening,
or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done,
some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the
applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding,
and tending to render the judgment ineffectual. (3a)
This Section has some minor changes.
Q: Ano ang changes ?
A: They added the word: non-performance. That is why they emphasized the essence
of mandatory, eh! So, f there is preliminary preventive, there is also, preliminary
mandatory.
Q: What is the area of enforceability of a writ of injunction?
A: Go back to the Interim Rules, Section 3-A. If the writ of preliminary injunction is
issued by the SC and CA, there is no problem. That is enforceable throughout the
country.
Q: What about an injunction issued by the RTC?
A: It cannot be enforced outside the region where such RTC is located.
Well, there is ONE EXCEPTION. That is in the case of EMBASSY FARMS, INC vs. CA,
188 SCRA 492 reiterating the earlier case of DAGUPAN ELECTRIC CORP. vs. PAO,
95 SCRA 693.
And here is the best example:
A corporation has extensive agricultural operation for example in Mindanao. But the
head office is in Makati. The management of the company in Makati arrives at a
decision regarding certain operations of their business in Mindanao. and the aggrieved
party files a case in the RTC of Makati and sought the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction against the corporation.
And the Makati court issued a writ of injunction where the act sought to be enjoined is
not in Makati but in Mindanao.
Q: Is the issuance of the writ of injunction of the Makati court proper?
A: And the court said, YES! While it is true that the act to be restrained is going to be
done in Mindanao but all the instruction and decision and decision are coming from
Makati. So, the Makati court can enjoin. That is the exception to the Rule that the RTC
injunction is only enforceable within the region.

Note:
Property of

LAKAS ATENISTA

PROVISIONAL REMEDIES (Rule 58)

24

GENERAL RULE: No court can issue a writ of preliminary injunction to interfere

with the judgments, processes of a co-equal court. So, the RTC cannot enjoin
another RTC. Also, the RTC cannot enjoin acts/proceedings in connection with a case
pending before a co-equal quasi-judicial body. Like for example: the RTC cannot
enjoin the Labor arbiter. The RTC cannot enjoin the SEC. Because these are co-equal
bodies.
So, for example in case of judgment against you in Manila and the Sheriff is now
claiming your property and you want to question the act of the Sheriff because your
property was levied. You file your case in Davao to stop the execution. If there is any
irregularity, you better go back and seek relief from the court which issued the
execution.
EXCEPTION:
That situation that no court can interfere in the process of a co-equal court should not
be conferred with the situation which is contemplated in the case of Manila Herald
vs.IAC 133 SCRA 141.
Mind you, all the cases asked in the Bar were taken from the exception and not from
the general rule.
Manila Herald vs.IAC
133 SCRA 141.
FACTS: A filed a case against B in Davao. B lost the case. So, a writ of execution was
issued by the court to the sheriff. The sheriff levied certain properties of B. Now, here
comes C. According to C, the property levied were not owned by B but by him (C) --3rd person, di ba ?
And under the Rule, nothing will prevent him from filing a separate action to raise
the question of ownership. So C filed a case before another court to annul the levy
made by the sheriff on his property and to stop him from continuing with the auction
sale.
Now, according to A, the court has no jurisdiction to issue the injunction because it will
be an interference with the process of the court to render judgment.
Q: Can the court validly issue the injunction?
A: Of course many remembered the general rule thatthe court cannot for it will be an
interference.
That is wrong. Remember, in those cases with interference there is no 3rd person
involved. Ito meron. It is not B the defendant questioning the levy, it was C, who is not
a party, asking to stop the levy.
So, the SC said: The 3rd party can file a separate case.
Q: Is that not an interference?
A: No! It is not an interference because in the judgment ordering the issuance of the
writ of execution issued by the court in favor of A, the Sheriff is commanded to levy
on the properties of B and not ordered to levy on the properties of C. So, if the sheriff
will levy on the property of C [or X or W] --- that is not part of the writ. So, C can
question that and he is not interfering.
One thing important about injunction is that there are two requisites:

TWO REQUISITES IN INJUNCTION:

1. The plaintiff must clearly show the existence of a right sought to be protected.
2. And the injunction is directed against the violation of the said right.
So there must be a right sought to be protected. If there is no right which ought to be
protected, there could be no injunction.
An example is the case of

SARENO V. DICTADO
160 SCRA 759
FACTS: Sareno was elected as mayor, he was proclaimed as the winner.
Five days later, the losing candidate filed an election protest before the
RTC.
Property of

LAKAS ATENISTA

PROVISIONAL REMEDIES (Rule 58)

25

Judge Dictado issued a writ of preliminary injunction to stop Sareno

from assuming office pending resolution of the case (election protest).
HELD: Judge Dictado committed grave abuse of discretion and acted in
excess of jurisdiction. The reason is that the pendency of the election
protest is not a sufficient basis to enjoin Sareno from assuming office as
required by law.
The efficiency of public administration should not be impaired until and
unless the election protest is decided against Sareno. During the
pendency of the case, he has the lawful right to assume and perform the
duties of a mayor. The claim of the losing candidate to the contested
office is a contingent right which could only ripen into an actual right
when judgment is rendered to this effect. His alleged right has not been
clearly established against Sareno whose right is actually existing.
An injunction is not proper to protect contingent or future rights nor is
it a remedy to enforce an abstract right.
Distinguish the case of Sareno from:

YU v. COURT OF APPEALS
217 SCRA 328
FACTS: Yu is the exclusive distributor of a certain product here in the
Philippines.
He discovered that another businessman is selling the
same product within the country. He filed a case against the other
businessman and sought an injunction against the latter from selling
said product.
HELD: Injunction is an appropriate remedy to prevent the wrongful
interference with contracts by strangers where other remedies are not
sufficient and the resulting injury is irreparable. The right to an
exclusive distributorship and to raise profits resulting from such
performance are proprietary rights which may be protected.

Instances where the issuance of injunction was held to be proper:

1) In petitions for certiorari or prohibition and mandamus.
2) In an action to annul a judgment or enjoin its enforcement.
Instances where injunction is inappropriate:
1) Injunction is inappropriate in enjoining an act which is already consummated.
2) A criminal prosecution cannot be enjoined or restrained.
You cannot prevent the fiscal from conducting criminal investigation and the
court cannot prevent him from conducting an investigation. The remedy is to go
to his superior or if you believe that there is no case, the remedy is to go to
trial. But the general rule: The criminal prosecution cannot be enjoined. But
there are exceptions :

BROCKA vs ENRILE
December 10, 1990 (192 SCRA 183)
HELD: The primary issue here is the legality of enjoining the criminal
prosecution of a case, since the two other issues raised by Brocka, et al. are
matters of defense against the sedition charge.
We rule in favor of Brocka, et al. and enjoin their criminal prosecution for
the second offense of inciting to sedition.
Indeed, the general rule is that criminal prosecution may not be
restrained or stayed by injunction, preliminary or final.
There are however exceptions, among which are:
Property of

LAKAS ATENISTA

PROVISIONAL REMEDIES (Rule 58)

26

a. To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused "

b. When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid
oppression or multiplicity of actions "
c. When there is a pre-judicial question which is sub judice
d. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority
e. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation
f. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent "
g. Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense
h. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution
i. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for
vengeance, and
j. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to
quash on that ground has been denied.
In the petition before us, Brocka, et al. have cited the circumstances to
show that the criminal proceedings had become a case of persecution, having
been undertaken by state officials in bad faith.

ALLADO vs DIOKNO
May 5, 1994 (232 SCRA 192)
FACTS: Two lawyers, assistants of Salonga were charged of murder for the
alleged kidnapping of a German. Salonga asked to stop the criminal prosecution.
HELD: The facts of this case are fatefully distressing as they showcase the
seeming immensity of government power which when unchecked becomes
tyrannical and oppressive. The case before us, if uncurbed, can be illustrative of
a dismal trend. Needless injury of the sort inflicted by government agents is not
reflective of responsible government. Judges and law enforcers are not, by
reason of their high and prestigious office, relieved of the common obligation to
avoid deliberately inflicting unnecessary injury.
Perhaps, this case would not have reached this Court if petitioners were
ordinary people submissive to the dictates of government. They would have been
illegally arrested and detained without bail. Then we would not have the
opportunity to rectify the injustice. Fortunately, the victims of injustice are
lawyers who are vigilant of their rights, who fight for their liberty and freedom
not otherwise available to those who cover in fear and subjection.
3) A mandatory injunction cannot be issued to compel one spouse to cohabit with
the other.
So, you cannot compel the wife. You are hereby enjoined to cohabit
your husband. Hindi yun puwede. Although she is obliged under the law
to live with his husband but no amount of court order can force the wife
to return to her husband kung ayaw niya. Although there are other
sanctions but not injunctions.

Let us go to MANDATORY INJUNCTION. This is rarer than a preventive preliminary

injunction. The guidelines for its issuance are also strict.
PURPOSE: is to re-establish and maintain a pre-existing right rather than to create a
new relationship between them.
If there is already an existing relationship which was arbitrarily interrupted by you, I
can file for mandatory injunction.
Q: When may a court issue a preliminary mandatory injunction?
A: 1. In cases of extreme urgency.
2. Where the right is very clear. PROSPERITY CREDIT RESOURCES, INC. vs CA,
January 15,1999. The right of the complainant must be clear and unmistakable
because, unlike an ordinary preliminary injunction, the writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction requires the performance of a particular act or and thus
tends to do more than maintain the status quo.
3. Where consideration of relative inconvenience bears strongly in complainant's
favor.
Property of

LAKAS ATENISTA

PROVISIONAL REMEDIES (Rule 58)

27

4. Where there is a willful and unlawful invasion of plaintiffs right against his
protest and remonstrance, the injury being a continuing one.
5. Articles 539 and 1674 of the Civil Code which expressly direct the issuance of
mandatory injunction. Example: A possessor deprived of his possession by
forcible entry may, within so many days, file a complaint in the proper court and
ask for a writ of mandatory injunction to restore him in his possession. And
also, in different cases where the defendant appealed, the lessor can ask the
appellate court to issue a mandatory injunction if the appeal is frivolous or
dilatory. Those are the instances when the law expressly grants the remedy.
6. Where the effect of mandatory injunction is rather to re-establish and maintain
a pre-existing continuing relation between the parties recently and arbitrarily
interrupted by the defendant.
The example asked in the Bar many times, MERALCO VS. CA, where the electric power
of the defendant was disconnected by Meralco, Then he filed a case questioning the act
of Meralco, and he has evidence to show that he has paying his bills. Something
happened somewhere. If he will wait for the time of judgment to be rendered, that
would take years. While the case is going on, he can file for a mandatory injunction to
reconnect.
Another example was the case of LEVI VS. VALENCIA, where Levi was the owner of a
broadcasting company. The government raided his radio station and got his transmitter
and cut down the power of his transmitter. He questioned all these acts and in the
meantime, he filed for mandatory injunction to allow him to continue broadcasting
because he has contracts with advertisers to comply with .
The SC said, when the petitioner was not able to continue broadcasting due to seizure
of his radio transmitter, this affects his contractual relations with third persons. The
court is justified to issuing a mandatory injunction.
SEC. 4. Verified application and bond for preliminary injunction
or temporary restraining order. - A preliminary injunction or
temporary restraining order may be granted only when:
a.) The application in the action or proceeding is verified and
shows facts entitling the applicant to the relief demanded; and
b.) Unless exempted by the court, the applicant files with the
court where the action or proceeding is pending, a bond
executed to the party or person enjoined, in an amount to be
fixed by the court, to the effect that the applicant will pay to
such party or person all damages which he may sustain by
reason of the injunction or temporary restraining order if the
court should finally decide that the applicant was not entitled
thereto. Upon approval of the requisite bond, a writ of
preliminary injunction shall be issued.
c.) When an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or a
temporary restraining order is included is a complaint or any
initiatory pleading, the case, if filed in an multiple-sala court,
shall be raffled only after notice to and in the presence of the
adverse party of the person to be enjoined. In any event, such
notice shall be preceded, or contemporaneously accompanied,
by the service of summons, together with a copy of the
complainant or initiatory pleading
and the applicants
affidavit and bond, upon the adverse party in the Philippines.
However, where the summons could not be served personally or
by substituted service despite diligent efforts, or the adverse
party is a resident of the Philippines temporarily absent
therefrom or is a non-resident thereof, the requirement of prior
contemporaneous service of summons shall not apply.
d.) The application of a temporary restraining order shall
thereafter be acted upon only after all parties are heard in a
summary hearing which shall be conducted within twenty four
(24) hours after the sheriff's return of service and/or the
Property of

LAKAS ATENISTA

PROVISIONAL REMEDIES (Rule 58)

28

records are received by the branch selected by raffle and to

which the records shall be transmitted immediately.
Sec. 5. Preliminary injunction not
granted without notice;
exception. - No preliminary injunction shall be granted without
hearing and prior notice to the party or person sought to be
enjoined. If it shall appear from the facts shown by affidavits or
by the verified application that great or irreparable injury would
result to the applicantbefore the matter can be heard on notice, the
court to which the application for preliminary injunction was
made, may issue ex parte a temporary restraining order to be
effective only for a period of Twenty (20) days from service on the
party or person sought to be enjoined, except as herein provided.
Within the twenty day period, the court must order said party or
person to show cause, at a specified time and place, why the
injunction should not be granted, determine within the same
period whether or not the preliminary injunction shall be granted,
and accordingly issue the corresponding order.
However, and subject to provisions of the preceding sections, if
the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer
grave injustice and irreparable injury, the executive judge of a
multiple sala court or the presiding judge of a single sala court
may issue ex parte a temporary restraining order effective only for
seventy two (72) hours from issuance but he shall immediately
comply with the provisions of the next preceding sections as to
service of summons and the documents to be served therewith.
Thereafter, within the aforesaid seventy two (72) hours, the
judge before whom the case is pending shall conduct a summary
hearing to determine whether the temporary restraining order
shall be
extended
until the application
for preliminary
injunction can be heard. In no case shall the total period of
effectivity of the temporary restraining order exceed twenty (20)
days, including the original seventy two (72) hours provided
herein.
In the event that the application for preliminary injunction is
denied or not resolved within said period, the temporary
restraining order is deemed automatically vacated.
The
effectivity of a temporary restraining order is not extendible
without need of any judicial declaration to that effect and no
court shall have authority to extend or renew the same on the
same ground for which it was issued.
However, if issued by the Court of Appeals or a member thereof the
temporary restraining order shall be effective for sixty (60) day
from service on the party or person sought to be enjoined. A
restraining order issued by the Supreme Court or a member thereof
shall be effective until further orders.
Sections 4 and 5 were taken from existing SC circulars particularly AC 20-95. The
trouble is specially section 4, the committee who drafted the new rules inserted so
many rules here that it becomes so hard to understand. Actually, it has become
vague.
Let us proceed with the basics. Some of which we have already learned.
Q: What are the requirements for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction?
A: Letters a and b of Section 4.
1. A verified application stating the facts showing the existence of a right sought to
be protected. Example: A local businessman entered into a contract with a
foreign supplier of items. He became the exclusive distributor. However, another
businessman is selling the same product. Does he have right to enjoin that
another businessman? Yes. Because he has a right sought to be protected.
2. Bond.
Property of

LAKAS ATENISTA

PROVISIONAL REMEDIES (Rule 58)

29

Q: Can a writ of Preliminary Injunction be issued ex parte - without hearing ?

A: NO.
Section 5 is very clear. No preliminary injunction to be granted without
hearing and further notice to parties sought to be enjoined.
So, the Filinvest ruling, Cuartero, Davao light ruling are not applicable.
There must be a hearing, presentation of evidence. Of course, in the presentation of
evidence since you are only asking for an injunction, the evidence should only be a
sample, because if you will present your entire evidence you are no longer asking for
an injunction but a decision.
That was explained by the SC in the 1993 case of

SYNDICATED MEDIA ACCESS CORP. vs CA

219 SCRA 784
HELD: While the evidence to be submitted in the hearing for the motion
for preliminary injunction need not be conclusive or complete, the
evidence needed may only be a sampling and intended merely to give the
court an idea of justification for preliminary injunction pending the
decision of the case on the merits, still such evidence must stand on
admissible grounds an not one which is merely hearsay.
The analogy is the same in case of petition for bail in criminal procedure.
Q: What happens if great or irreparable injury would result to the
applicant before the matter can be heard, meaning, before the
preliminary injunction can be acted upon. Is there a remedy
temporarily?
A: YES. You ask for a temporary restraining order. That is the
provisional remedy of the provisional remedy. And the grounds for
injunction are found in Section 3.
The ground for a temporary
restraining order is that great or irreparable injury would result to the
plaintiff before the matter can be heard.
So, the temporary restraining order may be issued ex parte but it has
only a duration of 20 days. As stated by the SC and emphasized in the
3rd paragraph of section 5, the effectivity of the TRO is unextendible
without the need of judicial declaration to that effect and no court shall
have the authority to extend the same on the same grounds. There is no
such thing as an extended TRO. This was taken from judicial
declarations.
There seems to be AN EXCEPTION. One of them is cited in the case of
FEDERATION OF LAND REFORM FARMERS OF THE PHILS. vs. CA
246 SCRA 175 (1994).
HELD: Ordinarily, the efficacy of the TRO is non-extendible, and the
courts have no discretion to extend the same considering the mandatory
tenor of the rule. However, there is no reason to prevent the court from
extending the 20-day period when the parties themselves ask for some
extension for the maintenance of the status quo. Because of AC 20-95
which has been incorporated in sections 4 & 5, the SC created a second
type of TRO, the so called 72-hour TRO. Because when you file a case, it
has not yet been raffled. So under Circular 20-95, the executive
judge in a multi-sala court can
issue ex parte a temporary
restraining order but only good for 72 hours or three days. And then
within 24 hours, the other party must be notified. There must be a
special raffling within 24 hours. and then the judge must conduct a
summary hearing based on the arguments only, in order to determine
whether the temporary restraining order should be extended beyond 72
hours.
Property of

LAKAS ATENISTA

PROVISIONAL REMEDIES (Rule 58)

30

Two kinds of temporary restraining order:

1. Issued by an executive judge valid only for 72 hours.
2. After summary hearing, the judge will now extend and the extension should not
be more than 20 days. The 72 hours is already included in the 20 days. So in
effect, the extension is only for 17 days, and the total life of the TRO is 20 days.
1. Distinguish a writ a preliminary injunction from a temporary restraining order.
One requires a hearing, the other may issued ex parte. Generally, preliminary
injunction is indefinite until dissolved. Normally, a preliminary injunction requires a
bond, a temporary restraining can be issued w/out a bond.
But there is second question.
2. Distinguish a TRO issued by an executive judge from a TRO issued by an
ordinary judge.
The former is good for 72 hrs. and the latter for 20 days including the first 72 hrs. The
former is issued before raffling and the latter after raffling. The former is ex-parte and
the latter is after summary hearing. For the 72-hr TRO, the ground is extreme urgency.
And the ground for the 20-day TRO is that grave and irreparable injury would result
before the matter can be heard.
So 20 days if issued by the MTC or RTC.
Q: How about a TRO issued by the CA?
A: You have the last paragraph, it is now effective for 60 days from service to the
parties. The case of Delbros Hotel Corp. is abrogated because under the said case the
lifetime of the temporary restraining order issued by the CA is only 20 days. So from 20
to 60 days.
Q: How about a TRO issued by the SC ?
A: This time it is indefinite. It shall effective until the case is decided. Actually, The SC
can give a deadline. Sometimes after further orders, sometimes they can limit it.
Q: Is there a necessity of a bond?
A: A bond is required for only a preliminary injunction and as a rule there is no bond
for a TRO. You look at par. a, "and the amount fix by court....." so the bond can now
be imposed for a TRO when actually it is only for injunction as a rule.
Maybe what is intended by the law, 72 hrs. then you ask for an extension up to
another 7 days, so 10 days. Then after 10 days, extension again. That is allowed
because it is up to 20 days. Then you give a bond for the second extension. The
court is now empower to fix a bond for the TRO. But definitely in injunction there is a
bond. But you look at the opening clause of par. b "unless excepted by the court."
that means to say there are instances when the court may exempt the petitioner form
putting up a bond in injunction when under the rule there is none. That is a radical
change.
Take note: Generally. An injunction requires a bond unless exempted by the court.
Under par. c of section 4, the last part has incorporated a portion of the Davao Light
ruling. A TRO must be served prior or contemporaneously with the summons. You
can not serve the TRO ahead. It must be served prior to the summons or at least
contemporaneously.
Sec. 6. Grounds for objection to, or for motion of dissolution of,
injunction or restraining order. - The application for injunction or
restraining order may be denied, upon a showing of its
insufficiency. The injunction or restraining order may also be
denied ,or, if granted, may be dissolved on other grounds upon
affidavits of the party or person enjoined, which may be opposed
by the applicant also by affidavits. It may further be denied, or, if
granted, may be dissolved if it appears hearing that although
the applicant is entitled to the injunction or restraining order,
the issuance or the continuance thereof, as the case may be,
Property of

LAKAS ATENISTA

PROVISIONAL REMEDIES (Rule 58)

31

would cause irreparable damage to the party or person enjoined

while the applicant can be fully compensated for such damages
as he may suffer, and the former files a bond in an amount fixed
by the court conditioned that he will pay all damages which the
applicant may suffer by denial or dissolution of the injunction
and restraining order. If it appears that the extent of the
preliminary injunction or restraining order granted too great,
it may be modified.
Q: What are the grounds for the dissolution of a writ of preliminary injunction or
objection to its issuance?
A: That is under Sec. 6.
1. When the insufficiency of the application is shown by the application itself. The
petition has no basis.
2. Upon affidavits of the party or person enjoined, which may be opposed by the
applicant also by affidavits.
3. Putting up a counter-bond.
Sec. 7. Service of copies of bonds; effect of disapproval of same.
The party filing a bond in accordance with the provisions of this
Rule shall forthwith serve a copy of such bond on the other party,
who may except to the sufficiency of the bond, or of the surety or
sureties thereon. If the applicants bond is found to be insufficient
in amount, or if the surety or sureties thereon fail to justify, and a
bond sufficient in amount with sufficient sureties approved after
justification is not filed forthwith, the injunction shall be
dissolved. If the bond of the adverse party is found to be
insufficient in amount, or the surety or sureties thereon fail to
justify a bond sufficient in amount with sufficient sureties
approved after justification is not filed forthwith, the injunction
shall be granted or restored, as the case may be.
Sec. 8. Judgment to include damages against party and sureties.At the trial, the amount of damages to be awarded to either party
, upon the bond of the adverse party, shall be claimed ,
ascertained and awarded under the same procedure prescribed
in Section 20 of Rule 57.
Q: Can you claim for damages against an injunction bond?
A: YES. The same procedure for recovery of damages against the attachment bond in
Section 20, Rule 57.
Before we leave this topic, you must remember that there are SOME SPECIAL LAWS
WHICH PROHIBIT THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION OR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER.
Q: What are these?
A: They are the following:
1. B.P. 227, which prohibits the issuance of injunctions or TROs in labor cases;
2. P.D. 605, prohibiting courts from issuing injunctions and TROs against
projects for the exploitation or development of natural resources;
3. P.D. 385, prohibiting injunction against government financing institutions,
against mandatory foreclosures or against CARL;
4. R.A. 7181 as inserted by R.A. 7061, you cannot issue an injunction against the
Asset Privatization Trust;
5. P.D. 1818, prohibiting injunction against public infrastructure projects and
public utilities; Under this law in relation to SC circulars, no injunction also
against NAPOCOR.
MALAGA vs. PINASTIUS, JR.
213 SCRA 516
Q: What is the extent of the applicability of P.D. 1818?
Property of

LAKAS ATENISTA

PROVISIONAL REMEDIES (Rule 58)

Actually, what is prohibited is that the court cannot interfere
injunction in controversies involving facts for the exercise of discretion
technical cases. Example, we will not award because the plan
substandard. Only one bidder and he losses. He complains and wants
question the award of the committee on technical matters.

32

in
in
is
to

The SC said the Court cannot rule on that. What do we know of

technical matters like engineering? So the court cannot substitute its
own decision on technical matters like engineering or on infrastructure
projects. That is prohibited. But if I will ask the court to issue an
injunction to stop an infrastructure project because from the very start
including the award has been tainted with corruption, that is allowed
because it refers to legal matters.
So the SC said, The prohibition pertains to the issuance of injunction
against administrative acts or technical cases. To allow the court to judge
on technical matters would disturb the smooth functioning of the
administrative machinery. However, on issues definitely outside of this
dimension and involving questions of law, the court could not be
prevented by the decree for exercising their power to restrain or prohibit
administrative acts. P.D. 1818 was not intended to screen from judicial
scrutiny irregularities committed by administrative agencies.
Section 9. When final injunction granted. If after the trial of the
action it appears that the applicant is entitled to have the act or
acts complained of permanently enjoined, the court shall grant a
final injunction perpetually restraining the party or person
enjoined from the commission or continuance of the act or acts or
confirming the preliminary mandatory injunction.

Property of

LAKAS ATENISTA