This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-11-24 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| A preliminary injunction may be granted only where the plaintiff appears to be clearly entitled to the relief sought[26] and has substantial interest in the right sought to be defended.[27] While the existence of the right need not be conclusively established, it must be clear.[28] The standard is even higher in the case of a preliminary mandatory injunction, which should only be granted - | |||||
|
2005-09-20 |
|||||
| The trial court in granting the injunctive relief tersely ratiocinated that "the plaintiffs appear to be entitled to the relief prayed for and this Court is of the considered belief and humble view that, without necessarily delving on the merits, the paramount interest of justice will be better served if the status quo shall be maintained." Clearly, this statement falls short of the requirement laid down by the above-quoted case. Similarly, in Developers Group of Companies, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[47] we held that it was "not enough" for the trial court, in its order granting the writ, to simply say that it appeared "after hearing that plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for." | |||||