This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-07-14 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct is explicit: Rule 3.02. In every case, a judge shall endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts and the applicable law unswayed by partisan interests, public opinion or fear of criticism. Moreover, Rule 58, Section 4 (a) of the Rules of Court is clear with regard to the procedure to be followed in the issuance of writs of preliminary injunction, i.e., a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order may be granted only when the application in the action or proceeding is verified, and shows facts entitling the applicant to the relief demanded. The rule is very explicit in its requirement that a preliminary injunction may be granted only when the complaint is verified. Absence of verification makes an application or petition for preliminary injunction patently insufficient both in form and substance.[18] | |||||
|
2004-05-24 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Respondent contends that the omission of signatures of the plaintiffs on the verification and the certification against forum shopping was cured by their intention to verify the truth and correctness of their allegation as shown by their swearing before the notary public. This contention lacks merit. In all but exceptional cases,[30] counsel is not allowed to sign for the plaintiffs.[31] Time and again, the Court has held that although the rules[32] allow the issuance of ex-parte TROs in exceptional cases, the absence of proper verification by the parties themselves makes the application for preliminary injunction patently insufficient both in form and substance.[33] This is explicit in Section 5 of Rule 58[34] of the Rules of Court. The formal requirement of proper verification is indispensable. | |||||