This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-07-08 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of writs of preliminary injunction implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction; or the exercise of power in an arbitrary despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice or personal aversion amounting to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[26] The burden is thus on petitioner to show in his application that there is meritorious ground for the issuance of TRO in his favor.[27] When the complainant’s right is doubtful or disputed, he does not have a clear legal right and, therefore, the issuance of injunctive writ is improper.[28] Herein, the Spouses Dulnuan failed to show that they have clear and unmistakable right to the issuance of writ in question. | |||||
|
2015-06-30 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| A preliminary injunction is defined as "[a]n order granted at any stage of an action prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a party or a court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular actor acts."[17] It may be a prohibitory injunction, which requires a party to refrain from doing a particular act, or a mandatory injunction, which commands a party to perform a positive act to correct a wrong in the past.[18] It is a provisional remedy that a party may resort to in order to preserve and protect certain rights and interests during the pendency of an action.[19] | |||||
|
2014-03-05 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| As the lower courts correctly found, Tuazon had no ownership to confer to the petitioners despite the latter's reimbursement of Tuazon's purchase expenses. Because they were never owners of the property, the petitioners failed to establish entitlement to the writ of preliminary injunction. "[T]o be entitled to an injunctive writ, the right to be protected and the violation against that right must be shown. A writ of preliminary injunction may be issued only upon clear showing of an actual existing right to be protected during the pendency of the principal action. When the complainant's right or title is doubtful or disputed, he does not have a clear legal right and, therefore, the issuance of injunctive relief is not proper."[23] | |||||