Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DUVAZ CORPORATION v. EXPORT

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 153852 2012-10-24	SPS. HUMBERTO P. DELOS SANTOS AND CARMENCITA M. DELOS SANTOS v. METROPOLITAN BANK BERSAMIN, J.
We reiterate that injunction will not protect contingent, abstract or future rights whose existence is doubtful or disputed.[31] Indeed, there must exist an actual right,[32] because injunction will not be issued to protect a right not in esse and which may never arise, or to restrain an act which does not give rise to a cause of action. At any rate, an application for injunctive relief is strictly construed against the pleader.[33]
	GR No. 173036 2012-09-26	AGOO RICE MILL CORPORATION v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES BRION, J.
The existence of the ARMC's claimed right to the loan restructuring, however, was not clearly established by the ARMC. A party seeking to avail of an injunctive relief must prove that he or she possesses a right in esse or one that is actual or existing.[47] Such right must be clear and unmistakable,[48] and not contingent, abstract or future rights, or one that may never arise.[49]
	GR No. 165950 2010-08-08	EQUITABLE PCI BANK v. OJ-MARK TRADING VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The possibility of irreparable damage without proof of actual existing right is no ground for an injunction.[22] Hence, it is not sufficient for the respondents to simply harp on the serious damage they stand to suffer if the foreclosure sale is not stayed. They must establish such clear and unmistakable right to the injunction. In Duvaz Corporation v. Export and Industry Bank,[23] we emphasized that it is necessary for the petitioner to establish in the main case its rights on an alleged dacion en pago agreement before those rights can be deemed actual and existing, which would justify the injunctive writ. Thus: In Almeida v. Court of Appeals, the Court stressed how important it is for the applicant for an injunctive writ to establish his right thereto by competent evidence:
	GR No. 178411 2010-06-23	OFFICE OF CITY MAYOR OF PARAÑAQUE CITY v. MARIO D. EBIO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
A right in esse means a clear and unmistakable right.[34] A party seeking to avail of an injunctive relief must prove that he or she possesses a right in esse or one that is actual or existing.[35] It should not be contingent, abstract, or future rights, or one which may never arise.[36]
	GR No. 179230 2010-03-09	EUGENE L. LIM v. BPI AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK CARPIO MORALES, J.
One of the requisites for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is that the applicant must have a right in esse.[22] A right in esse is a clear and unmistakable right to be protected,[23] one clearly founded on or granted by law or is enforceable as a matter of law.[24] The existence of a right to be protected, and the acts against which the writ is to be directed are violative of said right must be established.[25]
	GR No. 179892-93 2009-01-30	ATTY. VICTORIANO V. OROCIO v. EDMUND P. ANGULUAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A clear legal right means one clearly founded on or granted by law or is enforceable as a matter of law.[37] The existence of a right violated is a prerequisite to the granting of a writ of preliminary injunction.[38] A writ of preliminary injunction will not issue to protect a right not in esse and which may never arise.[39] It may be issued only if the applicant has clearly shown an actual existing right that should be protected during the pendency of the principal action.[40] In the absence of a clear legal right, or when the applicant's right or title is doubtful or disputed, preliminary injunction is not proper.[41]