This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2016-02-03 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| There were cases, however, when the Court treated a status quo order as a writ of preliminary injunction. In Prado, et al. v. Veridiano II, et al.,[51] the Court ruled that the status quo order in that case was in fact a writ of preliminary injunction, which enjoined the defendants from continuing not only the public bidding in that case but also subsequent bidding until the trial court had resolved the issues.[52] The Court applied the requirements for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction in determining the propriety for the issuance of a status quo order.[53] | |||||
|
2014-12-03 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Third, it is settled in jurisprudence that an application for a status quo order which in fact seeks injunctive relief must comply with Section 4, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court: i.e., the application must be verified aside from the posting of the requisite bond.[34] In the present case, the Manifestation and Motion, through which respondent applied for injunctive relief or in the alternative a status quo order, was merely signed by her counsel and was unverified. | |||||