Lawyerly

GR No. 190112

2015-04-22

BRION, J.

Relying on the Court's pronouncement in Bustamante v. Court of Appeals,[6] the CA ruled that the enforcement of PCCI's amendments to the By-laws, having already been long consummated, could no longer be enjoined since the primary purpose of the injunctive relief is not to correct a wrong already consummated, or to redress an injury already sustained, but to protect and preserve the status quo until the finality of the resolution of the main issue. The CA reversed the RTC's Order dated February 4, 2008.

AM No. RTJ-10-2216

2012-06-26

STATE PROSECUTORS II JOSEF ALBERT T. COMILANG v. JUDGE MEDEL ARNALDO B. BELEN

PER CURIAM

A preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy, an adjunct to the main case subject to the latter's outcome. Its sole objective is to preserve the status quo until the court hears fully the merits of the case. Its primary purpose is not to correct a wrong already consummated, or to redress an injury already sustained, or to punish wrongful acts already committed, but to preserve and protect the rights of the litigants during the pendency of the case.[15] The status quo should be that existing ante litem motam or at the time of the filing of the case.[16]

GR No. 193415

2012-04-18

SPS. DAISY AND SOCRATES M. AREVALO v. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK

SERENO, J.

A writ of preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy. It is auxiliary to, an adjunct of, and subject to the outcome of the main case.[36] Thus, a writ of preliminary injunction is deemed lifted upon dismissal of the main case, any appeal therefrom notwithstanding,[37] as this Court emphasized in Buyco v. Baraquia[38] from which we quote: The writ is provisional because it constitutes a temporary measure availed of during the pendency of the action and it is ancillary because it is a mere incident in and is dependent upon the result of the main action.

GR No. 172712

2012-03-21

STRADCOM CORPORATION v. HILARIO L. LAQUI AS ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC OF QUEZON CITY

PEREZ, J.

Considering that DTECH's main case has been already mooted, it stands to reason that the issue of the validity of the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the RTC had likewise been mooted. Indeed, a preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy, an adjunct to the main case subject to the latter's outcome.[31] It is resorted to by a litigant for the preservation or protection of his rights or interest and for no other purpose during the pendency of the principal action.[32] Under the above-discussed factual milieu, we find no more reason to determine whether or not the RTC's grant of the writ of preliminary injunction sought by DTECH amounted to grave abuse of discretion.

GR No. 177130

2011-06-07

EDUARDO ERMITA IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY v. JENNY LIND R. ALDECOA-DELORINO

CARPIO MORALES, J.

It is well to emphasize that the grant or denial of a writ of preliminary injunction in a pending case rests on the sound discretion of the court taking cognizance thereof. [9] In the present case, however, where it is the Government which is being enjoined from implementing an issuance which enjoys the presumption of validity, such discretion must be exercised with utmost caution. Executive Secretary v. Court of Appeals, [10] enlightens: In Social Security Commission v. Judge Bayona, we ruled that a law is presumed constitutional until otherwise declared by judicial interpretation. The suspension of the operation of the law is a matter of extreme delicacy because it is an interference with the official acts not only of the duly elected representatives of the people but also of the highest magistrate of the land.

GR No. 187872

2011-04-11

STRATEGIC ALLIANCE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. STAR INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ET AL.

PEREZ, J.

As an adjunct to the main action subject to the latter's outcome,[34] on the other hand, a writ of preliminary injunction may be issued upon the concurrence of the following essential requisites, to wit: (1) that the invasion of the right is material and substantial; (2) that the right of complainant is clear and unmistakable; and, (3) that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.[35] Concurrence of the foregoing requisites is evident from the fact that STRADEC has been deprived of its rights to its shareholdings and to participate in SIDC's corporate affairs as a consequence of the impugned loan and pledge as well as the transfer of the shares to respondent Wong and CTCII. For these reasons alone, we find that STRADEC is entitled to a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain: (a) CTCII from further exercising proprietary rights over the subject shares; (b) SIDC and its officers from recognizing the transfer or further transfers of the same; (c) the implementation of the resolutions passed during the 20 July 2006 SIDC stockholders' special meeting; and, (d) the SEC from acting on any report submitted in respect thereto. Far from amounting to a prejudgment of the case, the restraint of said acts is merely in the service of the office of a writ of preliminary injunction, i.e., the restoration of the status quo ante as well preservation and protection of the rights of the litigant during the pendency of the case.[36]

GR No. 179898

2008-12-23

MAUNLAD HOMES v. UNION BANK OF PHILIPPINES

REYES, R.T., J.

Injunctive reliefs may be the main prayer in a complaint or an incident to the main action. In both instances, the object of injunctive reliefs is the same. It is to protect and preserve the status quo until finality of the resolution of the main issue. In Bustamante v. Court of Appeals,[13] the Court held:A preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy, an adjunct to the main case subject to the latter's outcome. Its sole objective is to preserve the status quo until the trial court hears fully the merits of the case. Its primary purpose is not to correct a wrong already consummated, or to redress an injury already sustained, or to punish wrongful acts already committed, but to preserve and protect the rights of the litigant during the pendency of the case.

GR NO. 175936

2007-09-03

CHAN CUAN v. CHIANG KAI SHEK COLLEGE

GARCIA, J.

Lacking in a thorough determination of the preliminary facts, the appellate court's decision cannot be sustained. Instead, we must look to what has been established by the trial court's own determination as embodied in its assailed Order of July 27, 2006. This Court, being not one of facts, must rely on the findings of fact made by the trial court, which as well commend great respect in even injunction cases.[15]

GR No. 169802

2007-06-08

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

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Moreover, the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction is discretionary on the part of the trial court.[42] Thus, the rule is, the matter of the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, unless the court commits grave abuse of discretion.[43] In Toyota Motor Phils. Corporation Workers" Association (TMPCWA) v. Court of Appeals,[44] this Court pronounced that grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of writs of preliminary injunction implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment that is 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. It is clear that the assessment and evaluation of evidence in the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction involve findings of facts ordinarily left to the trial court for its conclusive determination.[45] 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.[46] However, as earlier stated, if the court commits grave abuse of its discretion in the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction, such that the act amounts to excess or lack of jurisdiction, the same may be nullified through a writ of certiorari or prohibition.

GR NO. 164459

2007-04-24

LIMITLESS POTENTIALS v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

A preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy that a party may resort to in order to preserve and protect certain rights and interests during the pendency of an action.[19] It is an order granted at any stage of an action, prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a party, court, agency or person to perform or to refrain from performing a particular act or acts. A preliminary injunction, as the term itself suggests, is merely temporary, subject to the final disposition of the principal action.[20] It is issued to preserve the status quo ante, which is the last actual, peaceful, and uncontested status that preceded the actual controversy,[21] in order to protect the rights of the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. Otherwise, if no preliminary injunction is issued, the defendant may, before final judgment, do the act which the plaintiff is seeking the court to restrain. This will make ineffectual the final judgment that the court may afterwards render in granting relief to the plaintiff.[22] The status quo should be existing ante litem motam, or at the time of the filing of the case. For this reason, a preliminary injunction should not establish new relations between the parties, but merely maintain or re-establish the pre-existing relationship between them.[23]

GR NO. 174263

2007-01-24

JOSE TORRES v. ABELARDO M. ABUNDO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Petitioner is likewise mistaken in averring that, since the COMELEC granted his motion for issuance of TRO and Injunction, it cannot thereafter dismiss his petition. A preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy, an adjunct to the main case subject to the latter's outcome. Its sole objective is to preserve the status quo until the trial court hears fully the merits of the case. Its primary purpose is not to correct a wrong already consummated, or to redress an injury already sustained, or to punish wrongful acts already committed, but to preserve and protect the rights of the litigant during the pendency of the case.[21]

GR NO. 144755

2005-06-08

SPS. ELISEO F. ESTARES AND ROSENDA P. ESTARES v. CA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

It must be stressed that the assessment and evaluation of evidence in the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction involve findings of facts ordinarily left to the trial court for its conclusive determination.[38] As such, a trial court's decision to grant or to deny injunctive relief will not be set aside on appeal unless the court abused its discretion. In granting or denying injunctive relief, a court abuses its discretion when it lacks jurisdiction, fails to consider and make a record of the factors relevant to its determination, relies on clearly erroneous factual findings, considers clearly irrelevant or improper factors, clearly gives too much weight to one factor, relies on erroneous conclusions of law or equity, or misapplies its factual or legal conclusions.[39]

GR NO. 152440

2005-01-31

FELICITACION B. BORBAJO v. HIDDEN VIEW HOMEOWNERS

TINGA, J.

The requisites to justify an injunctive relief are: (a) the existence of a right in esse or the existence of a right to be protected; and (b) the act against which injunction is to be directed as a violation of such right.[38] A preliminary injunction order may be granted only when the application for the issuance of the same shows facts entitling the applicant to the relief demanded.[39] A preliminary injunction is not proper when its purpose is to take the property out of the possession or control of one party and transfer the same to the hands of another who did not have such control at the inception of the case and whose legal title has not clearly been established.[40]

GR NO. 140284

2005-01-21

BEETHOVEN L. RUALO v. ELISEO P. PITARGUE

CARPIO, J.

A preliminary injunction is merely a provisional remedy, an adjunct to the main case subject to the latter's outcome. Its sole objective is to preserve the status quo until the trial court hears fully the merits of the case. The status quo is the last actual, peaceable and uncontested situation which precedes a controversy. The status quo should be that existing at the time of the filing of the case. A preliminary injunction should not establish new relations between the parties, but merely maintain or re-establish the pre-existing relationship between them.[34] We remind respondents of our ruling in Manila International Airport Authority v. Court of Appeals:[35]

	GR No. 190112 2015-04-22	PRIMO CO v. PHILIPPINE CANINE CLUB BRION, J.
Relying on the Court's pronouncement in Bustamante v. Court of Appeals,[6] the CA ruled that the enforcement of PCCI's amendments to the By-laws, having already been long consummated, could no longer be enjoined since the primary purpose of the injunctive relief is not to correct a wrong already consummated, or to redress an injury already sustained, but to protect and preserve the status quo until the finality of the resolution of the main issue. The CA reversed the RTC's Order dated February 4, 2008.
	AM No. RTJ-10-2216 2012-06-26	STATE PROSECUTORS II JOSEF ALBERT T. COMILANG v. JUDGE MEDEL ARNALDO B. BELEN PER CURIAM
A preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy, an adjunct to the main case subject to the latter's outcome. Its sole objective is to preserve the status quo until the court hears fully the merits of the case. Its primary purpose is not to correct a wrong already consummated, or to redress an injury already sustained, or to punish wrongful acts already committed, but to preserve and protect the rights of the litigants during the pendency of the case.[15] The status quo should be that existing ante litem motam or at the time of the filing of the case.[16]
	GR No. 193415 2012-04-18	SPS. DAISY AND SOCRATES M. AREVALO v. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK SERENO, J.
A writ of preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy. It is auxiliary to, an adjunct of, and subject to the outcome of the main case.[36] Thus, a writ of preliminary injunction is deemed lifted upon dismissal of the main case, any appeal therefrom notwithstanding,[37] as this Court emphasized in Buyco v. Baraquia[38] from which we quote: The writ is provisional because it constitutes a temporary measure availed of during the pendency of the action and it is ancillary because it is a mere incident in and is dependent upon the result of the main action.
	GR No. 172712 2012-03-21	STRADCOM CORPORATION v. HILARIO L. LAQUI AS ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC OF QUEZON CITY PEREZ, J.
Considering that DTECH's main case has been already mooted, it stands to reason that the issue of the validity of the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the RTC had likewise been mooted. Indeed, a preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy, an adjunct to the main case subject to the latter's outcome.[31] It is resorted to by a litigant for the preservation or protection of his rights or interest and for no other purpose during the pendency of the principal action.[32] Under the above-discussed factual milieu, we find no more reason to determine whether or not the RTC's grant of the writ of preliminary injunction sought by DTECH amounted to grave abuse of discretion.
	GR No. 177130 2011-06-07	EDUARDO ERMITA IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY v. JENNY LIND R. ALDECOA-DELORINO CARPIO MORALES, J.
It is well to emphasize that the grant or denial of a writ of preliminary injunction in a pending case rests on the sound discretion of the court taking cognizance thereof. [9] In the present case, however, where it is the Government which is being enjoined from implementing an issuance which enjoys the presumption of validity, such discretion must be exercised with utmost caution. Executive Secretary v. Court of Appeals, [10] enlightens: In Social Security Commission v. Judge Bayona, we ruled that a law is presumed constitutional until otherwise declared by judicial interpretation. The suspension of the operation of the law is a matter of extreme delicacy because it is an interference with the official acts not only of the duly elected representatives of the people but also of the highest magistrate of the land.
	GR No. 187872 2011-04-11	STRATEGIC ALLIANCE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. STAR INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ET AL. PEREZ, J.
As an adjunct to the main action subject to the latter's outcome,[34] on the other hand, a writ of preliminary injunction may be issued upon the concurrence of the following essential requisites, to wit: (1) that the invasion of the right is material and substantial; (2) that the right of complainant is clear and unmistakable; and, (3) that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.[35] Concurrence of the foregoing requisites is evident from the fact that STRADEC has been deprived of its rights to its shareholdings and to participate in SIDC's corporate affairs as a consequence of the impugned loan and pledge as well as the transfer of the shares to respondent Wong and CTCII. For these reasons alone, we find that STRADEC is entitled to a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain: (a) CTCII from further exercising proprietary rights over the subject shares; (b) SIDC and its officers from recognizing the transfer or further transfers of the same; (c) the implementation of the resolutions passed during the 20 July 2006 SIDC stockholders' special meeting; and, (d) the SEC from acting on any report submitted in respect thereto. Far from amounting to a prejudgment of the case, the restraint of said acts is merely in the service of the office of a writ of preliminary injunction, i.e., the restoration of the status quo ante as well preservation and protection of the rights of the litigant during the pendency of the case.[36]
	GR No. 179898 2008-12-23	MAUNLAD HOMES v. UNION BANK OF PHILIPPINES REYES, R.T., J.
Injunctive reliefs may be the main prayer in a complaint or an incident to the main action. In both instances, the object of injunctive reliefs is the same. It is to protect and preserve the status quo until finality of the resolution of the main issue. In Bustamante v. Court of Appeals,[13] the Court held:A preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy, an adjunct to the main case subject to the latter's outcome. Its sole objective is to preserve the status quo until the trial court hears fully the merits of the case. Its primary purpose is not to correct a wrong already consummated, or to redress an injury already sustained, or to punish wrongful acts already committed, but to preserve and protect the rights of the litigant during the pendency of the case.
	GR NO. 175936 2007-09-03	CHAN CUAN v. CHIANG KAI SHEK COLLEGE GARCIA, J.
Lacking in a thorough determination of the preliminary facts, the appellate court's decision cannot be sustained. Instead, we must look to what has been established by the trial court's own determination as embodied in its assailed Order of July 27, 2006. This Court, being not one of facts, must rely on the findings of fact made by the trial court, which as well commend great respect in even injunction cases.[15]
	GR No. 169802 2007-06-08	OVERSEAS WORKERS WELFARE ADMINISTRATION v. ATTY. CESAR L. CHAVEZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Moreover, the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction is discretionary on the part of the trial court.[42] Thus, the rule is, the matter of the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, unless the court commits grave abuse of discretion.[43] In Toyota Motor Phils. Corporation Workers" Association (TMPCWA) v. Court of Appeals,[44] this Court pronounced that grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of writs of preliminary injunction implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment that is 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. It is clear that the assessment and evaluation of evidence in the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction involve findings of facts ordinarily left to the trial court for its conclusive determination.[45] 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.[46] However, as earlier stated, if the court commits grave abuse of its discretion in the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction, such that the act amounts to excess or lack of jurisdiction, the same may be nullified through a writ of certiorari or prohibition.
	GR NO. 164459 2007-04-24	LIMITLESS POTENTIALS v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy that a party may resort to in order to preserve and protect certain rights and interests during the pendency of an action.[19] It is an order granted at any stage of an action, prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a party, court, agency or person to perform or to refrain from performing a particular act or acts. A preliminary injunction, as the term itself suggests, is merely temporary, subject to the final disposition of the principal action.[20] It is issued to preserve the status quo ante, which is the last actual, peaceful, and uncontested status that preceded the actual controversy,[21] in order to protect the rights of the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. Otherwise, if no preliminary injunction is issued, the defendant may, before final judgment, do the act which the plaintiff is seeking the court to restrain. This will make ineffectual the final judgment that the court may afterwards render in granting relief to the plaintiff.[22] The status quo should be existing ante litem motam, or at the time of the filing of the case. For this reason, a preliminary injunction should not establish new relations between the parties, but merely maintain or re-establish the pre-existing relationship between them.[23]
	GR NO. 174263 2007-01-24	JOSE TORRES v. ABELARDO M. ABUNDO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Petitioner is likewise mistaken in averring that, since the COMELEC granted his motion for issuance of TRO and Injunction, it cannot thereafter dismiss his petition. A preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy, an adjunct to the main case subject to the latter's outcome. Its sole objective is to preserve the status quo until the trial court hears fully the merits of the case. Its primary purpose is not to correct a wrong already consummated, or to redress an injury already sustained, or to punish wrongful acts already committed, but to preserve and protect the rights of the litigant during the pendency of the case.[21]
	GR NO. 144755 2005-06-08	SPS. ELISEO F. ESTARES AND ROSENDA P. ESTARES v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It must be stressed that the assessment and evaluation of evidence in the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction involve findings of facts ordinarily left to the trial court for its conclusive determination.[38] As such, a trial court's decision to grant or to deny injunctive relief will not be set aside on appeal unless the court abused its discretion. In granting or denying injunctive relief, a court abuses its discretion when it lacks jurisdiction, fails to consider and make a record of the factors relevant to its determination, relies on clearly erroneous factual findings, considers clearly irrelevant or improper factors, clearly gives too much weight to one factor, relies on erroneous conclusions of law or equity, or misapplies its factual or legal conclusions.[39]
	GR NO. 152440 2005-01-31	FELICITACION B. BORBAJO v. HIDDEN VIEW HOMEOWNERS TINGA, J.
The requisites to justify an injunctive relief are: (a) the existence of a right in esse or the existence of a right to be protected; and (b) the act against which injunction is to be directed as a violation of such right.[38] A preliminary injunction order may be granted only when the application for the issuance of the same shows facts entitling the applicant to the relief demanded.[39] A preliminary injunction is not proper when its purpose is to take the property out of the possession or control of one party and transfer the same to the hands of another who did not have such control at the inception of the case and whose legal title has not clearly been established.[40]
	GR NO. 140284 2005-01-21	BEETHOVEN L. RUALO v. ELISEO P. PITARGUE CARPIO, J.
A preliminary injunction is merely a provisional remedy, an adjunct to the main case subject to the latter's outcome. Its sole objective is to preserve the status quo until the trial court hears fully the merits of the case. The status quo is the last actual, peaceable and uncontested situation which precedes a controversy. The status quo should be that existing at the time of the filing of the case. A preliminary injunction should not establish new relations between the parties, but merely maintain or re-establish the pre-existing relationship between them.[34] We remind respondents of our ruling in Manila International Airport Authority v. Court of Appeals:[35]

JAIME BUSTAMANTE v. CA