Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Preliminary Injunction
a) Temporary
b) Subject to the final disposition of the principal action.
c) Dependent upon the result of the main action
PURPOSE: To preserve the status quo of the matter subject of the action and
to protect the rights of the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit.
Raymundo vs CA:
It is provisional because it constitutes a temporary measure availed of during
the pendency of the main action and it is ancillary because it is a mere incident
in and is dependent upon the result of the main action.
The findings of fact and opinion of a court when issuing the writ of preliminary
injunction are interlocutory in nature and made before the trial on the merits
is commenced or terminated. There may be vital facts to be presented at trial
which may not be obtained or presented during the hearing on the application
for the injunctive writ.
Status quo - as the last actual, peaceful, and uncontested statues that
precedes the actual controversy, that which is existing at the time of the filing
of the case.
a) party
b) court
c) agency, or
d) person
Kinds:
Distinguish:
PROHIBITORY MANDATORY
The act has not yet been The act has already been
performed because it is restrained or performed and this act has violated
prevented by the injunction. its the rights of another. since the act
purpose is to prevent a future or has already been performed, the
threatened injury. the status quo is purpose of the injunction is to
preserved. Consummated acts cannot restore the status quo and then
be enjoined. preserve the said status quo
which has been restored. this
status quo refers to the last peaceable
and uncontested status prior to the
controversy.
( Example: under sec 15 of rule 70, the rightful possessor of real property
deprived of his possession by force, intimidation, stealth, threats, or strategy,
may within 5 days from the filing of a complaint for forcible entry, present a
motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to restore
him in his possession )
Art 26 of the Civil code are examples of acts which may be enjoined through
the main action of injunction.
Section 4. Judgments not stayed by appeal. Judgments in actions for injunction, receivership, accounting and
support, and such other judgments as are now or may hereafter be declared to be immediately executory, shall be
enforceable after their rendition and shall not, be stayed by an appeal taken therefrom, unless otherwise ordered by
the trial court. On appeal therefrom, the appellate court in its discretion may make an order suspending, modifying,
restoring or granting the injunction, receivership, accounting, or award of support.
The stay of execution shall be upon such terms as to bond or otherwise as may be considered proper for the security or
protection of the rights of the adverse party. (4a)
provisional remedy not a main or special civil action and a main action
independent action
generally directed against a party directed against a tribunal, board,
litigant although, under the rules, it officer or person
may also be issued against a court,
agency or person.
Where the principal action is pending in the MTC, then it is the RTC which shall
issue the writ of preliminary injunction. Where the principal action is pending in
the RTC, then, it is this court which shall issue the writ of preliminary injunction.
If the main action is for injunction, the Municipal trial court cannot
grant the preliminary injunction. This is because an action for injunction is
one incapable of pecuniary estimation. BP129 Sec19{1}, RTC shall exercise
exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions in which the subject matter of
the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
The basic issue in an action incapable of pecuniary estimation is one other than
the recovery of money. An injunction is not instituted primarily to recover
money and, thus, properly meets the definition of an action incapable of
pecuniary estimation.
If the principal action or proceeding is pending in the CA, the application for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction must be made with the CA and the
writ shall be issued by said court or any of its members. if it is pending in the
SC, then the application must be made with that court or any member thereof.
(a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the
whole or 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) 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. (4a)
In other words, for the writ to issue, the right sought to be protected must be a
present right, a legal right which must be shown to be clear and positive.
Accordingly, this means that the applicants praying for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction must show that they have an ostensible right to the
final relief prayed for in their complaint
Requisites:
1) the existence of a right to be protected;
2) acts which are violative of said right.
In the absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of the injunctive relief
constitutes grave abuse of discretion. Injunction is not designed to protect
contingent or future rights. where the complainants right is doubtful or
disputed, injunction is not proper.
Court added: for an injunctive writ to issue, a clear showing of extreme urgency
to prevent irreparable injury and a clear and unmistakable right to it must
be proven by the party seeking it.
in re contract: the petitioner, who no longer has legal rights under a contract
that has expired, cannot prevent the respondent from entering into a contract
with another through a writ of injunction because a contract is entered into,
renewed or revived by mutual consent. By preventing the respondent from
negotiating a contract with another, the RTC, in effect extended the life of the
expired contract.
Quantum of evidence:
the plaintiffs are only required to show that they have an ostensible right to
the final relief prayed for in their complaint. A writ of preliminary injunction is
generally based solely on initial or incomplete evidence. such evidence seen
only be a sampling intended merely to give the court an evidence of
justification for prelim injunction pending the decision on the merits of the case
and is not conclusive of the principal action which has yet to be decided.
the holding of a hearing, where both parties can introduce evidence and
present their side, is also required before the courts ay issue an injunctive
writ.
c) the applicant must post a bond, unless exempted by the court. this bond,
which shall be in an amount to be fixed by the court, is executed in favor of the
party enjoined all damages which he may sustain by reason of the preliminary
injunction or the restraining order if the court should finally decide that the
applicant was not entitled to the writ or order.
the application for a temporary restraining order shall thereafter be acted upon
only after all parties are heard in a summary hearing which shall be
conducted within 24 hrs after the sheriffs return of service and/or the records
are received by the branch selected by raffle and to which the records shall b e
transmitted immediately.
Note:
However, and subject to the 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 for only seventy-two (72) hours from
issuance but he shall immediately comply with the provisions of the next preceding section 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 hours
provided herein.
In the event that the application for preliminary injunction is denied or not resolved within the 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) days 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. (5a)
Bond: court may order for the posting of a bond to protect the defendant
against loss or damage by reason of the injunction in case the court finally
decides that the plaintiff was not entitled to it, and the bond is usually
conditioned accordingly. (can be exempted)
A prelim injunction may be granted at any age of the proceedings but prior to
the judgment or final order.
if the case is filed in a multi-sale court, the case shall be raffled but only
after notice to and in the presence of the party sought to be enjoined. it is,
however required that the notice be preceded or contemporaneously
accompanied by service of summons upon the adverse party. together with the
summons shall be copy of the complaint and the applicants affidavit and bond.
However, where the summons could not be served upon the defendant either
in person or by substituted service despite diligent efforts or when the
defendant is temporarily out of the philippines or when he is a non-resident,
the requirement of prior or contemporaneous service shall not apply.
Section 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 facts shown by affidavits or by the verified
application that great or irreparable injury would result to the
applicant before the matter can be heard on notice, the court to which
the application for preliminary injunction was made, may issue 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 said 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. (Bar
Matter No. 803, 17 February 1998)
In re:
A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC December 4, 2007
(Added)
The trial court, the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbyan or the Court of
Tax Appeals that issued a writ of preliminary injunction against a
lower court, board, officer, or quasi-judicial agency shall decide the
main case or petition within six (6) months from the issuance of the
writ.
Prelim Injunction cannot be issued without a prior notice and hearing. it cannot
be issued ex parte.
Where the case is raffled, the period within which to conduct a summary
hearing in an application for a temporary restraining order is not 24 hours
after the case has been raffled but 24 hrs after the record are transmitted to
the branch to which it is raffled.
issued to preserve the status quo until the hearing of the application for a writ
of preliminary injunction because the injunction cannot be issued ex parte.
Extreme urgency, applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury,
the executive judge of a multi-sale court or the presiding judge of a sing-
sale court may issue ex parte a TRO effective for only 72 hrs from issuance
not service. There is also a need to immediately comply with the requirement
on service of summons and other documents as provided for in the preceding
section.
within this period, the judge, before whom the case is pending, shall conduct a
summary hearing to determine whether or not the TRO can be extended to
20 days. the 72 hour period shall be included in the maximum 20-day period
set by the rules. when the court is a multi-sale court, the TRO is not to be
issued by any other judge other than the executive judge of said court.
if no action is taken by the judge within 20-day period, the TRO would
automatically expire on the 20th day by the sheer force of law, no need for
judicial declaration.
omission to fix the period, deemed 20 day.
status quo order - is not a TRO. it is more in the nature of a cease and desist
order, has no specified duration and does not specifically direct the
performance of an act. it last until it is revoked. it duration may even be subject
to agreement of the parties. no bond is required for its issuance.
RTC:
for 20 days, TRO takes effect from service on the party
for 72 hours, takes effect upon issuance and not from its service or notice
Gr: 20 days
Xp: 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 for..72 hours)
CA:
60 days from service. no discretion to extend the same
SC:
effective until further orders
provisional remedy may be availed of when a petition for certiorari under rule 6
of the ROC is filed. the filing of a petition does not interrupt the course of the
principal use unless TRO or a writ of preliminary injunction is issued against the
respondent tribunal or officer.
settled is the rule that to arrest the course of the principal action during the
pendency of certiorari proceedings, there must be a restraining order or a writ
of preliminary injunction from the higher court directed to the lower court.
RA 8975:
This prohibition shall apply in all cases, disputes or controversies instituted by a private party, including but not limited
to cases filed by bidders or those claiming to have rights through such bidders involving such contract/project. This
prohibition shall not apply when the matter is of extreme urgency involving a constitutional issue, such that unless a
temporary restraining order is issued, grave injustice and irreparable injury will arise. The applicant shall file a bond, in
an amount to be fixed by the court, which bond shall accrue in favor of the government if the court should finally
decide that the applicant was not entitled to the relief sought.
In after due hearing the court finds that the award of the contract is null and void, the court may, if appropriate under
the circumstances, award the contract to the qualified and winning bidder or order a rebidding of the same, without
prejudice to any liability that the guilty party may incur under existing laws.
Section 4. Nullity of Writs and Orders. Any temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction or preliminary
mandatory injunction issued in violation of Section 3 hereof is void and of no force and effect.
Section 6. Penal Sanction. In addition to any civil and criminal liabilities he or she may incur under existing laws, any
judge who shall issue a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction in
violation of Section 3 hereof, shall suffer the penalty of suspension of at least sixty (60) days without pay.
Republic Act No. 8975[1] expressly prohibits any court, except the Supreme
Court, from issuing any temporary restraining order (TRO), preliminary
injunction, or preliminary mandatory injunction to restrain, prohibit or compel
the Government, or any of its subdivisions or officials, or any person or entity,
whether public or private, acting under the Governments direction, from: (a)
acquiring, clearing, and developing the right-of-way, site or location of any
National Government project; (b) bidding or awarding of a contract or project of
the National Government; (c) commencing, prosecuting, executing,
implementing, or operating any such contract or project; (d) terminating or
rescinding any such contract or project; and (e) undertaking or authorizing any
other lawful activity necessary for such contract or project.
Accordingly, a Regional Trial Court (RTC) that ignores the statutory prohibition
and issues a TRO or a writ of preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory
injunction against a government contract or project acts contrary to law.
*ang haba!!!*
The mere filing of a counterbond does not necessarily warrant the dissolution
of the writ of preliminary injunction. Under Section 6 of Rule 58 of the Rules of
Court, a preliminary injunction, if granted, may be dissolved "if it appears after
hearing that although the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction, the continuance
thereof, as the case may be, would cause great damage to the defendant while
the plaintiff can be fully compensated for such damages as he may suffer, and
the defendant files a bond in an amount fixed by the judge conditioned that he
will pay all damages which the plaintiff may suffer by the ... dissolution of the
injunction." Under this quoted provision of the rules of court, the court is called
upon to exercise its discretion in determining or weighing the relative damages
that may be suffered by the parties. If the damages that may be suffered by
the defendant by the continuance of the injunction outweigh the damages that
may be suffered by the plaintiff by the dissolution of the injunction, then the
injunction should be dissolved. In the case at bar the respondent court, in
refusing to dissolve the writ of preliminary injunction, took into consideration
that "the petitioner (Belo) will suffer great and irreparable injury considering
the tremendous investment of the petitioner, his time and gigantic efforts
made to put up telephone service in Roxas City." An injunction issued to stop an
unauthorized act should not be dissolved by the mere filing of a counterbond,
otherwise, the counterbond would come the vehicle of the commission or
continuance of an unauthorized or illegal act which the injunction precisely is
intended to prevent.
For grave abuse of discretion to exist as a valid ground for the nullification of
an injunctive writ, there must be a capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment, equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The power must be
exercised in an arbitrary manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and
it must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a
virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.
The trial court, the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbyan or the Court of Tax
Appeals that issued a writ of preliminary injunction against a lower court,
board, officer, or quasi-judicial agency shall decide the main case or petition
within six (6) months from the issuance of the writ.