This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2007-09-03 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| In Philippine Ports Authority v. Pier 8 Arrastre & Stevedoring Services, Inc.[12] and Levi Strauss & Co. v. Clinton Apparelle, Inc.,[13] the Court conceded that it is not enough, in granting the writ of injunction, to simply say that it appeared after hearing that plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for, and nothing else. We reechoed the ruling with greater clarity in University of the Philippines (U.P.) v. Catungal:[14] | |||||