Lawyerly

GR No. 195374

2014-03-10

PEDRO LUKANG v. PAGBILAO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

MENDOZA, J.

Thus, a writ of preliminary injunction may be issued upon the concurrence of the following essential requisites, to wit: (a) the invasion of right sought to be protected is material and substantial; (b) the right of the complainant is clear and unmistakable; and (c) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.[36] While a clear showing of the right is necessary, its existence need not be conclusively established. Hence, to be entitled to the writ, it is sufficient that the complainant shows that he has an ostensible right to the final relief prayed for in his complaint.[37]

GR No. 194104

2013-03-13

NOVATEKNIKA LAND CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

MENDOZA, J.

In addition, it must be pointed out that, as a general rule, the RTC decision granting or, in this case, denying injunctive relief will not be set aside on appeal unless the court abused its discretion. The trial court can be said to have abused its discretion if it lacked jurisdiction over the case, failed to consider and make a record of the factors relevant to its determination, relied on clearly erroneous factual findings, considered irrelevant or improper factors, gave too much weight to one factor, relied on erroneous conclusions of law or equity, or misapplied its factual or legal conclusions.[38]

GR No. 179898

2010-11-22

MAUNLAD HOMES v. UNION BANK OF PHILIPPINES

NACHURA, J.

The findings and conclusions of the trial court on the propriety of the issuance of injunctive writs are premised solely on initial evidence, and should be considered merely as provisional.[34] The contending rights and obligations of the parties based on the contract to sell or buy-back agreement will still have to be determined with finality by the trial court. The issue of whether there was delay in the payments under the contract to sell and whether the contract to sell is still subsisting must be determined first by the RTC. It is only proper that all the incidents in the main case be resolved in the trial court for a just determination of all the factual matters.

GR No. 184434

2010-02-08

G.G. SPORTSWEAR MANUFACTURING CORP. v. BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK

ABAD, J.

The test for issuing a TRO or an injunction is whether the facts show a need for equity to intervene in order to protect perceived rights in equity.[14] In general, a higher court will not set aside the trial court's grant or denial of an application for preliminary injunction unless it gravely abused its discretion as when it lacks jurisdiction over the action, ignores relevant considerations that stick out of the parties' pleadings, sees the facts with a blurred lens, ignores what is relevant, draws illogical conclusions, or simply acts in random fashion.

GR No. 160795

2008-06-27

CORINTHIAN GARDENS ASSOCIATION v. SPS. REYNALDO

NACHURA, J.

The denial was based on sound legal principles. It is axiomatic that to be entitled to the injunctive writ, one must show that there exists a right to be protected which is directly threatened by the act sought to be enjoined. Furthermore, there must be a showing that the invasion of the right is material and substantial, that the right of complainant is clear and unmistakable, and that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to issue in order to prevent serious damage.[26]

GR No. 168584

2007-10-15

REPUBLIC v. RAMON S. CAGUIOA

CARPIO MORALES, J.

To stress, the possibility of irreparable damage without proof of an actual existing right would not justify an injunctive relief.[52]

GR No. 166547

2007-09-12

UMBRA M. TOMAWIS v. ATTY. NORA M. TABAO-CAUDANG

NACHURA, J.

Accordingly, his petition for injunction should have been denied outright by the court. In the absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of the injunctive writ constitutes grave abuse of discretion.[52]

GR NO. 169534

2007-07-30

BRIGIDO B. PAREDES v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

On 22 October 2001, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision[15] in CA-G.R. SP No. 59124, granting the Petition for Review and absolving petitioner of administrative culpability in OMB-VIS-ADM-97-0536. Thus:

GR NO. 168484

2007-07-12

LEAH M. NAZARENO v. CITY OF DUMAGUETE

NACHURA, J.

There is an urgent and permanent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.[46] It must be stressed that injunction is not designed to protect contingent or future rights, and as such, the possibility of irreparable damage without proof of actual existing right is no ground for an injunction. A clear and positive right especially calling for judicial protection must be established.[47]

GR NO. 164529

2007-06-19

FELIX DE GUZMAN OCAMPO v. ALICIA SISON VDA. DE FERNANDEZ

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The Court of Appeals, therefore, did not commit any error when it reversed and set aside the Orders dated 11 November 2002 and 25 March 2003, of the RTC in Civil Case No. Q-01-44582; and dissolved the writ of preliminary injunction issued in the said Orders. These Orders granting petitioner Felix's application for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction were rendered by the RTC with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It is worthy to reiterate herein the ruling of this Court in Almeida v. Court of Appeals [44]

GR No. 169802

2007-06-08

OVERSEAS WORKERS WELFARE ADMINISTRATION v. ATTY. CESAR L. CHAVEZ

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

We do not find attendant the requisites for the issuance of a preliminary injunctive writ. This Court is not convinced that respondents were able to show a clear and unmistakable legal right to warrant their entitlement to the writ. A mere blanket allegation that they are all officers and employees of the OWWA without a showing of how they stand to be directly injured by the implementation of its questioned organizational structure does not suffice to prove a right in esse. As was aptly raised by the petitioner, respondents did not show that they were dismissed due to the challenged reorganization. There was no showing that they are the employees who are in grave danger of being displaced. Respondents were similarly wanting in proving that they are the consultants and contractual and casual employees, who will allegedly suffer by reason of the re-organization. This Court is consistently adamant in demanding that a clear and positive right especially calling for judicial protection must be established.[56] As has been reiterated, injunction is not a remedy to protect or enforce contingent, abstract, or future rights; it will not issue to protect a right not in esse and which may never arise, or to restrain an action which did not give rise to a cause of action.[57] In contrast, the rights of OWWA are accorded to it by law. The importance of the reorganization within the body and the benefits that will accrue thereto were accentuated by the Board of Trustees in its Resolution No. 001. The aforesaid resolution declared, inter alia, that the structuring of the OWWA will stabilize the internal organization and promote careerism among the employees, as well as ensure a more efficient and effective delivery of programs and services to member-OFWs'.[58] However, we go further to opine that even the question of whether the OWWA requires an amendatory law for its reorganization is one that should be best threshed out in the disposition of the merits of the case. Indeed, the question as to the validity of the OWWA reorganization remains the subject in the main case pending before the trial court. Its annulment is outside the realm of the instant Petition.

GR No. 163011

2007-06-07

DUVAZ CORPORATION v. EXPORT

GARCIA, J.

In Almeida v. Court of Appeals,[4] the Court stressed how important it is for the applicant for an injunctive writ to establish his right thereto by competent evidence:Thus, the petitioner, as plaintiff, was burdened to adduce testimonial and/or documentary evidence to establish her right to the injunctive writs. It must be stressed that injunction is not designed to protect contingent or future rights, and, as such, the possibility of irreparable damage without proof of actual existing right is no ground for an injunction. A clear and positive right especially calling for judicial protection must be established. Injunction is not a remedy to protect or enforce contingent, abstract, or future rights; it will not issue to protect a right not in esse and which may never arise, or to restrain an action which did not give rise to a cause of action. There must be an existence of an actual right. Hence, where the plaintiff's right or title is doubtful or disputed, injunction is not proper.

GR NO. 140842

2007-04-12

RUFINA CHUA v. CA

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Since respondent has not shown any right to be protected, the second requisite for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is obviously absent. As such, the Court of Appeals clearly acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing its assailed Resolution of September 20, 1999 granting the writ of preliminary injunction. We held that the grant of the writ of preliminary injunction despite the absence of a clear legal right on the part of the applicant constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.[12]

GR NO. 162716

2006-09-27

SECRETARY EMILIA T. BONCODIN OF DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION EMPLOYEES CONSOLIDATED UNION

PANGANIBAN, CJ

Absent any clear and unquestioned legal right, the issuance of an injunctive writ would constitute grave abuse of discretion.[19] Injunction is not designed to protect contingent, abstract or future rights whose existence is doubtful or disputed.[20] It cannot be grounded on the possibility of irreparable damage without proof of an actual existing right.[21] Sans that proof, equity will not take cognizance of suits to establish title or lend its preventive aid by injunction.[22]

GR NO. 164548

2006-09-27

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. RJ VENTURES REALTY

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Second, there is an urgent and paramount necessity to prevent serious damage. Indeed, an injunctive remedy may only be resorted to when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences which cannot be remedied under any standard compensation.[75] PNB assails the existence of this ground by raising the argument that there is, in actuality, a pecuniary standard by which RBN's damage can be measured, as evidenced by the testimony of RBN's witness that it will suffer a loss of P1.2 Billion for the next ten (10) years.

	GR No. 195374 2014-03-10	PEDRO LUKANG v. PAGBILAO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION MENDOZA, J.
Thus, a writ of preliminary injunction may be issued upon the concurrence of the following essential requisites, to wit: (a) the invasion of right sought to be protected is material and substantial; (b) the right of the complainant is clear and unmistakable; and (c) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.[36] While a clear showing of the right is necessary, its existence need not be conclusively established. Hence, to be entitled to the writ, it is sufficient that the complainant shows that he has an ostensible right to the final relief prayed for in his complaint.[37]
	GR No. 194104 2013-03-13	NOVATEKNIKA LAND CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK MENDOZA, J.
In addition, it must be pointed out that, as a general rule, the RTC decision granting or, in this case, denying injunctive relief will not be set aside on appeal unless the court abused its discretion. The trial court can be said to have abused its discretion if it lacked jurisdiction over the case, failed to consider and make a record of the factors relevant to its determination, relied on clearly erroneous factual findings, considered irrelevant or improper factors, gave too much weight to one factor, relied on erroneous conclusions of law or equity, or misapplied its factual or legal conclusions.[38]
	GR No. 179898 2010-11-22	MAUNLAD HOMES v. UNION BANK OF PHILIPPINES NACHURA, J.
The findings and conclusions of the trial court on the propriety of the issuance of injunctive writs are premised solely on initial evidence, and should be considered merely as provisional.[34] The contending rights and obligations of the parties based on the contract to sell or buy-back agreement will still have to be determined with finality by the trial court. The issue of whether there was delay in the payments under the contract to sell and whether the contract to sell is still subsisting must be determined first by the RTC. It is only proper that all the incidents in the main case be resolved in the trial court for a just determination of all the factual matters.
	GR No. 184434 2010-02-08	G.G. SPORTSWEAR MANUFACTURING CORP. v. BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK ABAD, J.
The test for issuing a TRO or an injunction is whether the facts show a need for equity to intervene in order to protect perceived rights in equity.[14] In general, a higher court will not set aside the trial court's grant or denial of an application for preliminary injunction unless it gravely abused its discretion as when it lacks jurisdiction over the action, ignores relevant considerations that stick out of the parties' pleadings, sees the facts with a blurred lens, ignores what is relevant, draws illogical conclusions, or simply acts in random fashion.
	GR No. 160795 2008-06-27	CORINTHIAN GARDENS ASSOCIATION v. SPS. REYNALDO NACHURA, J.
The denial was based on sound legal principles. It is axiomatic that to be entitled to the injunctive writ, one must show that there exists a right to be protected which is directly threatened by the act sought to be enjoined. Furthermore, there must be a showing that the invasion of the right is material and substantial, that the right of complainant is clear and unmistakable, and that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to issue in order to prevent serious damage.[26]
	GR No. 168584 2007-10-15	REPUBLIC v. RAMON S. CAGUIOA CARPIO MORALES, J.
To stress, the possibility of irreparable damage without proof of an actual existing right would not justify an injunctive relief.[52]
	GR No. 166547 2007-09-12	UMBRA M. TOMAWIS v. ATTY. NORA M. TABAO-CAUDANG NACHURA, J.
Accordingly, his petition for injunction should have been denied outright by the court. In the absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of the injunctive writ constitutes grave abuse of discretion.[52]
	GR NO. 169534 2007-07-30	BRIGIDO B. PAREDES v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
On 22 October 2001, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision[15] in CA-G.R. SP No. 59124, granting the Petition for Review and absolving petitioner of administrative culpability in OMB-VIS-ADM-97-0536. Thus:
	GR NO. 168484 2007-07-12	LEAH M. NAZARENO v. CITY OF DUMAGUETE NACHURA, J.
There is an urgent and permanent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.[46] It must be stressed that injunction is not designed to protect contingent or future rights, and as such, the possibility of irreparable damage without proof of actual existing right is no ground for an injunction. A clear and positive right especially calling for judicial protection must be established.[47]
	GR NO. 164529 2007-06-19	FELIX DE GUZMAN OCAMPO v. ALICIA SISON VDA. DE FERNANDEZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The Court of Appeals, therefore, did not commit any error when it reversed and set aside the Orders dated 11 November 2002 and 25 March 2003, of the RTC in Civil Case No. Q-01-44582; and dissolved the writ of preliminary injunction issued in the said Orders. These Orders granting petitioner Felix's application for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction were rendered by the RTC with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It is worthy to reiterate herein the ruling of this Court in Almeida v. Court of Appeals [44]
	GR No. 169802 2007-06-08	OVERSEAS WORKERS WELFARE ADMINISTRATION v. ATTY. CESAR L. CHAVEZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We do not find attendant the requisites for the issuance of a preliminary injunctive writ. This Court is not convinced that respondents were able to show a clear and unmistakable legal right to warrant their entitlement to the writ. A mere blanket allegation that they are all officers and employees of the OWWA without a showing of how they stand to be directly injured by the implementation of its questioned organizational structure does not suffice to prove a right in esse. As was aptly raised by the petitioner, respondents did not show that they were dismissed due to the challenged reorganization. There was no showing that they are the employees who are in grave danger of being displaced. Respondents were similarly wanting in proving that they are the consultants and contractual and casual employees, who will allegedly suffer by reason of the re-organization. This Court is consistently adamant in demanding that a clear and positive right especially calling for judicial protection must be established.[56] As has been reiterated, injunction is not a remedy to protect or enforce contingent, abstract, or future rights; it will not issue to protect a right not in esse and which may never arise, or to restrain an action which did not give rise to a cause of action.[57] In contrast, the rights of OWWA are accorded to it by law. The importance of the reorganization within the body and the benefits that will accrue thereto were accentuated by the Board of Trustees in its Resolution No. 001. The aforesaid resolution declared, inter alia, that the structuring of the OWWA will stabilize the internal organization and promote careerism among the employees, as well as ensure a more efficient and effective delivery of programs and services to member-OFWs'.[58] However, we go further to opine that even the question of whether the OWWA requires an amendatory law for its reorganization is one that should be best threshed out in the disposition of the merits of the case. Indeed, the question as to the validity of the OWWA reorganization remains the subject in the main case pending before the trial court. Its annulment is outside the realm of the instant Petition.
	GR No. 163011 2007-06-07	DUVAZ CORPORATION v. EXPORT GARCIA, J.
In Almeida v. Court of Appeals,[4] the Court stressed how important it is for the applicant for an injunctive writ to establish his right thereto by competent evidence:Thus, the petitioner, as plaintiff, was burdened to adduce testimonial and/or documentary evidence to establish her right to the injunctive writs. It must be stressed that injunction is not designed to protect contingent or future rights, and, as such, the possibility of irreparable damage without proof of actual existing right is no ground for an injunction. A clear and positive right especially calling for judicial protection must be established. Injunction is not a remedy to protect or enforce contingent, abstract, or future rights; it will not issue to protect a right not in esse and which may never arise, or to restrain an action which did not give rise to a cause of action. There must be an existence of an actual right. Hence, where the plaintiff's right or title is doubtful or disputed, injunction is not proper.
	GR NO. 140842 2007-04-12	RUFINA CHUA v. CA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Since respondent has not shown any right to be protected, the second requisite for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is obviously absent. As such, the Court of Appeals clearly acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing its assailed Resolution of September 20, 1999 granting the writ of preliminary injunction. We held that the grant of the writ of preliminary injunction despite the absence of a clear legal right on the part of the applicant constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.[12]
	GR NO. 162716 2006-09-27	SECRETARY EMILIA T. BONCODIN OF DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION EMPLOYEES CONSOLIDATED UNION PANGANIBAN, CJ
Absent any clear and unquestioned legal right, the issuance of an injunctive writ would constitute grave abuse of discretion.[19] Injunction is not designed to protect contingent, abstract or future rights whose existence is doubtful or disputed.[20] It cannot be grounded on the possibility of irreparable damage without proof of an actual existing right.[21] Sans that proof, equity will not take cognizance of suits to establish title or lend its preventive aid by injunction.[22]
	GR NO. 164548 2006-09-27	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. RJ VENTURES REALTY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Second, there is an urgent and paramount necessity to prevent serious damage. Indeed, an injunctive remedy may only be resorted to when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences which cannot be remedied under any standard compensation.[75] PNB assails the existence of this ground by raising the argument that there is, in actuality, a pecuniary standard by which RBN's damage can be measured, as evidenced by the testimony of RBN's witness that it will suffer a loss of P1.2 Billion for the next ten (10) years.

MARCELA GONZALES ALMEIDA v. CA