This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-11-11 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| A writ of preliminary injunction is generally based solely on initial and incomplete evidence.[30] The evidence submitted during the hearing on an application for a writ of preliminary injunction is not conclusive or complete for only a sampling is needed to give the trial court an idea of the justification for the preliminary injunction pending the decision of the case on the merits.[31] As such, the findings of fact and opinion of a court when issuing the writ of preliminary injunction are interlocutory in nature and made even before the trial on the merits is commenced or terminated.[32] | |||||
|
2007-02-19 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| However, to establish the essential requisites for a preliminary injunction, the evidence to be submitted by the plaintiff need not be conclusive and complete.[61] The plaintiffs are only required to show that they have an ostensible right to the final relief prayed for in their complaint.[62] A writ of preliminary injunction is generally based solely on initial or incomplete evidence.[63] Such evidence need only be a sampling intended merely to give the court an evidence of justification for a preliminary injunction pending the decision on the merits of the case, and is not conclusive of the principal action which has yet to be decided.[64] | |||||
|
2005-09-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| For the foregoing reasons, the prayer for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction must perforce be denied. Preliminary injunction is a mere ancillary remedy which cannot stand separately or proceed independently of the main case. Having declared that the petition filed before the trial court was correctly dismissed, the determination of the homeowners association's entitlement to a writ of preliminary injunction is already moot and academic.[37] | |||||
|
2002-05-28 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| In recent years, it has been the jurisprudential trend to apply the doctrine of primary jurisdiction in many cases involving matters that demand the special competence of administrative agencies. It may occur that the Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of a particular case, which means that the matter involved is also judicial in character. However, if the case is such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized skills and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies because technical matters or intricate questions of facts are involved, then relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by the courts even though the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of a court. This is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. It applies "where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body; in such case the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its view" x x x x "Uniformity and consistency in the regulation of business entrusted to an administrative agency are secured, and the limited function of review by the judiciary are more rationally exercised, by preliminary resort, for ascertaining and interpreting the circumstances underlying legal issues, to agencies that are better equipped than courts by specialization, by insight gained through experience, and by more flexible procedure" x x x x[39] The propriety of the Order of dismissal of Civil Case No. 95-72586 should render moot and academic the instant petition for review of the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 36345, "Two Thousand (2000) Transport Corporation v. Hon. Guillermo L. Loja, Sr., as Judge, RTC of Manila, Branch 26, and G & S Transport Corporation," and in CA-G.R. SP No. 36356, "Nissan Car Lease Philippines, Inc. v. Hon. Guillermo L. Loja, Sr., as Judge, RTC of Manila, Branch 26, and G & S Transport Corporation." It is well settled that the issue of propriety of obtaining a preliminary injunction dies with the main case from which it logically sprang. Such a provisional remedy, like any other interlocutory order, cannot survive the main case of which it is but an incident.[40] Indeed what more could this Court enjoin when the complaint has already been dismissed? To be sure, even a ruling granting the petition at bar would not revive the civil case much less change our ruling in the petition for certiorari under Rule 65.[41] The remedy in question is precisely termed preliminary since it is meant to restrain acts prior to the rendition of a judgment or a final order.[42] | |||||