This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-06-25 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the applicant must prove that the violation sought to be prevented would cause an irreparable injustice.[46] But the respondents failed to establish the irreparable injury they would suffer should the writ of preliminary injunction not be issued. They principally feared the loss of their possession and ownership of the mortgaged properties, and faced the possibility of a criminal prosecution for the post-dated checks they issued. But such fear of potential loss of possession and ownership, or facing a criminal prosecution did not constitute the requisite irreparable injury that could have warranted the issuance of the writ of injunction. "An injury is considered irreparable," according to Philippine National Bank v. Castalloy Technology Corporation,[47] | |||||
|
2013-04-03 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| A writ of preliminary injunction is an extraordinary event which must be granted only in the face of actual and existing substantial rights. The duty of the court taking cognizance of a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction is to determine whether the requisites necessary for the grant of an injunction are present in the case before it.[25] In this connection, a writ of preliminary injunction is issued to preserve the status quo ante, upon the applicant's showing of two important requisite conditions, namely: (1) the right to be protected exists prima facie, and (2) the acts sought to be enjoined are violative of that right. It must be proven that the violation sought to be prevented would cause an irreparable injury.[26] | |||||