Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

POWER SITES v. UNITED NEON

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 193809 2015-03-23	SATURNINO NOVECIO v. RODRIGO F. LIM BRION, J.
A preliminary injunction is proper when the plaintiff appears to be clearly entitled to the relief sought and has substantial interest in the right sought to be defended. As this Court has previously ruled, "while the existence of the right need not be conclusively established, it must be clear."[23]
	GR No. 182371 2013-09-04	HEIRS OF MELENCIO YU v. CA PERALTA, J.
Thus, a preliminary mandatory injunction should only be granted "in cases of extreme urgency; where the right is very clear; where considerations of relative inconvenience bear strongly in complainant's favor; where there is a willful and unlawful invasion of plaintiff's right against his protest and remonstrance, the injury being a continuing one; and where the effect of the mandatory injunction is rather to re-establish and maintain a pre-existing continuing relation between the parties, recently and arbitrarily interrupted by the defendant, than to establish a new relation."[43]
	GR No. 174788 2013-04-11	SPECIAL AUDIT TEAM v. CA SERENO, C.J.
From its ruling, it is clear that the CA erred in granting a TRO and writ of preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction is proper only when the plaintiff appears to be clearly entitled to the relief sought and has substantial interest in the right sought to be defended.[79] Factually, there must exist "a right to be protected and that the acts against which the writ is to be directed are violative of the said right."[80] As this Court has previously ruled, "[w]hile the existence of the right need not be conclusively established, it must be clear."[81]
	GR No. 183367 2012-03-14	SECOND DIVISION AUSTRALIAN PROFESSIONAL REALTY v. MUNICIPALITY OF PADRE GARCIA BATANGAS PROVINCE SERENO, J.
Damages are irreparable where there is no standard by which their amount can be measured with reasonable accuracy.[27] In this case, petitioners have alleged that the loss of the public market entails costs of about ?30,000,000 in investments, ?100,000 monthly revenue in rentals, and amounts as yet unquantified but not unquantifiable in terms of the alleged loss of jobs of APRI's employees and potential suits that may be filed by the leaseholders of the public market for breach of contract. Clearly, the injuries alleged by petitioners are capable of pecuniary estimation. Any loss petitioners may suffer is easily subject to mathematical computation and, if proven, is fully compensable by damages. Thus, a preliminary injunction is not warranted.[28] With respect to the allegations of loss of employment and potential suits, these are speculative at best, with no proof adduced to substantiate them.