Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

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

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 179736 2013-06-26	SPS. BILL v. ALEXANDER CHOACHUY DEL CASTILLO, J.
The RTC, thus, considered that petitioners have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their property, whether they use it as a business office or as a residence and that the installation of video surveillance cameras directly facing petitioners' property or covering a significant portion thereof, without their consent, is a clear violation of their right to privacy. As we see then, the issuance of a preliminary injunction was justified. We need not belabor that the issuance of a preliminary injunction is discretionary on the part of the court taking cognizance of the case and should not be interfered with, unless there is grave abuse of discretion committed by the court.[56] Here, there is no indication of any grave abuse of discretion. Hence, the CA erred in finding that petitioners are not entitled to an injunctive writ.
	GR No. 159370 2012-10-03	PALM TREE ESTATES v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
A writ of preliminary injunction is an extraordinary event which must be granted only in the face of actual and existing substantial rights.[55] The duty of the court taking cognizance of a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction is to determine whether the requisites necessary for the grant of an injunction are present in the case before it.[56] In the absence of the same, and where facts are shown to be wanting in bringing the matter within the conditions for its issuance, the ancillary writ must be struck down for having been rendered in grave abuse of discretion.[57]
	GR No. 183367 2012-03-14	SECOND DIVISION AUSTRALIAN PROFESSIONAL REALTY v. MUNICIPALITY OF PADRE GARCIA BATANGAS PROVINCE SERENO, J.
Grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of writs of preliminary injunction implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction; or the exercise of power in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice or personal aversion amounting to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[18] The burden is thus on petitioner to show in his application that there is meritorious ground for the issuance of a TRO in his favor.[19]
	GR No. 181643 2010-11-17	MICHELLE I. PINEDA v. CA MENDOZA, J.
Finally, while the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction is discretionary on the part of the trial court, grave abuse of discretion is committed when it does not maintain the status quo which is the last actual, peaceable and uncontested status which preceded the actual controversy. If there is such a commission, it is correctible through a writ of certiorari.[22] In this case, the status quo ante litem or the state of affairs existing at the time of the filing of the case was that Pineda was already prohibited from operating the school canteen. For said reason, the trial court cannot make use of its injunctive power to change said status.[23]