This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-01-07 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| It is a deeply ingrained doctrine in Philippine remedial law that a preliminary injunctive writ under Rule 58[14] issues only upon a showing of the applicant's "clear legal right"[15] being violated or under threat of violation by the defendant.[16] "Clear legal right," within the meaning of Rule 58, contemplates a right "clearly founded in or granted by law."[17] Any hint of doubt or dispute on the asserted legal right precludes the grant of preliminary injunctive relief.[18] For suits attacking the validity of laws or issuances with the force and effect of law, as here, the applicant for preliminary injunctive relief bears the added burden of overcoming the presumption of validity inhering in such laws or issuances.[19] These procedural barriers to the issuance of a preliminary injunctive writ are rooted on the equitable nature of such relief, preserving the status quo while, at the same time, restricting the course of action of the defendants even before adverse judgment is rendered against them. | |||||
|
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] | |||||
|
2007-08-02 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action prior to judgment of final order, requiring a party, court, agency, or person to refrain from a particular act or acts.[28] It is a preservative remedy aimed to protect the complainant's substantive rights and interests during the pendency of the principal action.[29] It is proper only when the plaintiff appears to be entitled to the relief demanded in the complaint.[30] Thus, there are two conditions for the issuance of a preliminary injunction: (1) a clear right to be protected exists prima facie and (2) the acts sought to be enjoined are violative of that right.[31] The issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is addressed to the sound discretion of the court.[32] | |||||
|
2004-03-23 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The petitioner appealed the decision,[10] while respondent Frank Tan did not. On November 26, 1999, the appellate court rendered judgment affirming in toto the decision of the trial court. Aggrieved, the petitioner assailed the decision in his | |||||