This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-07-07 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The Court expounded on the nature of a writ of preliminary injunction in Levi Strauss & Co. v. Clinton Apparelle, Inc. [129]: Section 1, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court defines a preliminary injunction as an order granted at any stage of an action prior to the judgment or final order requiring a party or a court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts. Injunction is accepted as the strong arm of equity or a transcendent remedy to be used cautiously as it affects the respective rights of the parties, and only upon full conviction on the part of the court of its extreme necessity. An extraordinary remedy, injunction is designed to preserve or maintain the status quo of things and is generally availed of to prevent actual or threatened acts until the merits of the case can be heard. It may be resorted to only by a litigant for the preservation or protection of his rights or interests and for no other purpose during the pendency of the principal action. It is resorted to only when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences, which cannot be remedied under any standard compensation. The resolution of an application for a writ of preliminary injunction rests upon the existence of an emergency or of a special recourse before the main case can be heard in due course of proceedings. | |||||
|
2009-08-14 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In Levi Strauss & Co. v. Clinton Apparelle, Inc.,[51] we held: While the matter of the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, this discretion must be exercised based upon the grounds and in the manner provided by law. The exercise of discretion by the trial court in injunctive matters is generally not interfered with save in cases of manifest abuse. And to determine whether there was grave abuse of discretion, a scrutiny must be made of the bases, if any, considered by the trial court in granting injunctive relief. Be it stressed that injunction is the strong arm of equity which must be issued with great caution and deliberation, and only in cases of great injury where there is no commensurate remedy in damages.[52] | |||||
|
2006-06-30 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| A prohibitory injunction, as its name suggests, commands a party to refrain from doing a particular act, while a mandatory injunction commands the performance of some positive act to correct a wrong in the past. [15] | |||||