This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-07-06 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| The purpose of a TRO is to prevent a threatened wrong and to protect the property or rights involved from further injury, until the issues can be determined after a hearing on the merits. [43] Under Section 5, Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a TRO may be issued only if it appears from the facts shown by affidavits or by a verified application that great or irreparable injury would be incurred by an applicant before the writ of preliminary injunction could be heard. | |||||
|
2010-02-22 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| This rule, however, is not inflexible. Interventions have been allowed even beyond the period prescribed in the Rule, when demanded by the higher interest of justice. Interventions have also been granted to afford indispensable parties, who have not been impleaded, the right to be heard even after a decision has been rendered by the trial court,[8] when the petition for review of the judgment has already been submitted for decision before the Supreme Court,[9] and even where the assailed order has already become final and executory.[10] In Lim v. Pacquing,[11] the motion for intervention filed by the Republic of the Philippines was allowed by this Court to avoid grave injustice and injury and to settle once and for all the substantive issues raised by the parties. | |||||
|
2004-01-20 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| It should, furthermore, be borne in mind that cockfighting although authorized by law is still a form of gambling. Gambling is essentially antagonistic to the aims of enhancing national productivity and self-reliance.[24] As has been previously said, a statute which authorizes a gambling activity or business should be strictly construed, and every reasonable doubt resolved so as to limit rather than expand the powers and rights claimed by franchise holders under its authority.[25] | |||||