This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-11-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Valley Trading Co., Inc. v. Court of First Instance of Isabela,[44] it was held that the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is addressed to the sound discretion of the issuing authority, conditioned on the existence of a clear and positive right of the applicant which should be protected. It is an extraordinary peremptory remedy that may be availed of only upon the grounds expressly provided by law.[45] In Government Service Insurance System v. Florendo[46] and Searth Commodities Corp. v. Court of Appeals,[47] it was also held that the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction as an ancillary or preventive remedy to secure the rights of a party in a pending case is entirely within the discretion of the tribunal taking cognizance of the case, limited only by the requirement that the use of such discretion be based on ground and in the manner provided by law.[48] Bataclan v. Court of Appeals[49] also points out that although sufficient discretion is allowed in the grant of the relief, extreme caution must be taken in determining the necessity for the grant of the relief prayed for, because it would necessarily affect the protective rights of the parties in a case.[50] | |||||
|
2010-08-09 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| For sure, the Court is aware that the matter of the propriety of the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. It bears to stress, however, that the injunctive writ is conditioned on the existence of a clear and positive right of the applicant which should be protected, the writ being the strong arm of equity, an extraordinary peremptory remedy which can be availed of only upon the existence of well-defined circumstances. Be that as it may, the writ must be used with extreme caution, affecting as it does the respective rights of the parties.[35] In fine, the writ should be granted only when the court is fully satisfied that the law permits it and the emergency demands it,[36] for the very foundation of the jurisdiction to issue writ of injunction rests in the existence of a cause of action, probability of irreparable injury, inadequacy of pecuniary compensation, and the prevention of the multiplicity of suits. Where facts are not shown to bring the case within these conditions, the relief of injunction should be refused.[37] | |||||
|
2007-02-13 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| It is basic that the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, conditioned on the existence of a clear and positive right of the applicant which should be protected. It is an extraordinary, peremptory remedy available only on the grounds expressly provided by law, specifically Section 3, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court.[34] Moreover, extreme caution must be observed in the exercise of such discretion.[35] It should be granted only when the court is fully satisfied that the law permits it and the emergency demands it.[36] The very foundation of the jurisdiction to issue a writ of injunction rests in the existence of a cause of action and in the probability of irreparable injury, inadequacy of pecuniary compensation, and the prevention of multiplicity of suits. Where facts are not shown to bring the case within these conditions, the relief of injunction should be refused.[37] | |||||