Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE SINTER CORPORATION v. CAGAYAN ELECTRIC POWER

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 160795 2008-06-27	CORINTHIAN GARDENS ASSOCIATION v. SPS. REYNALDO NACHURA, J.
An injunction to stay a final and executory decision is unavailing except only after a showing that facts and circumstances exist which would render execution unjust or inequitable, or that a change in the situation of the parties occurred. Here, no such exception exists as shown by the facts earlier narrated.[29]
	GR No. 166547 2007-09-12	UMBRA M. TOMAWIS v. ATTY. NORA M. TABAO-CAUDANG NACHURA, J.
Injunction is a judicial writ, process or proceeding whereby a party is ordered to do or refrain from doing a certain act. It may be the main action or merely a provisional remedy for and as an incident in the main action.[47] As a rule, to justify the injunctive relief prayed for, the movant must show: (1) the existence of a right in esse or the existence of a right to be protected; and (2) that the act against which injunction is to be directed is a violation of such right.[48] A "clear legal right" means one clearly founded on or granted by law or is enforceable as a matter of law.[49] The onus probandi is on movant to show that there exists a right to be protected, which is directly threatened by the acts sought to be enjoined. Further, there must be a showing that the invasion of the right is material and substantial and that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent a serious damage.[50]
	GR NO. 144218 2006-07-14	EMILIE G. DE LUNA v. FEDERICO C. PASCUAL CALLEJO, SR., J.
Petitioner failed to establish any justification for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction despite the finality of the decision of the GSIS. Administrative decisions must end sometime, as fully as public policy demands that finality be written on judicial controversies. Public interest requires that proceedings already terminated should not be altered at every step, for the rule of non quieta movere prescribes that what had already been terminated should not be disturbed. A disregard of this principle does not commend itself to sound public policy.[36]
	GR No. 147861 2005-11-18	PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY v. PIER 8 ARRASTRE 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.[24] A preliminary injunction is proper only when the plaintiff appears to be entitled to the relief demanded in his complaint.[25]
	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. 159586 2004-07-26	EUROPEAN RESOURCES v. INGENIEUBURO BIRKHAHN + NOLTE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Before an injunctive writ can be issued, it is essential that the following requisites are present: (1) there must be a right in esse or the existence of a right to be protected; and (2) the act against which injunction to be directed is a violation of such right.[29] The onus probandi is on movant to show that there exists a right to be protected, which is directly threatened by the act sought to be enjoined. Further, there must be a showing that the invasion of the right is material and substantial and that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent a serious damage.[30]
	AM No. RTJ-03-1760 2004-01-15	FELICIDAD B. DADIZON v. JUDGE ENRIQUE C. ASIS QUISUMBING, J.
Issuance of said writ is entirely within the discretion of the trial court. The only limitation is that this discretion should be exercised based upon the grounds and in the manner provided by law.[22] The requisites for injunctive relief are (1) there must be a right in esse or the existence of a right to be protected; and (2) the act against which the injunction is to be directed is a violation of such right.[23] Respondent was able to show that petitioners in said case were entitled to the writ because there existed in favor of the petitioners a clear and unmistakable right therefor, and the facts clearly showed an urgent and paramount necessity for its issuance to prevent serious damage. There, the petitioners adequately proved their status as co-owners of the subject ancestral house and lot, and that they were forced out of the ancestral house preparatory to their intended sale.
	AM No. MTJ-03-1513 2003-11-12	SPS. JAIME AND PURIFICACION MORTA v. JUDGE ANTONIO C. BAGAGÑAN PANGANIBAN, J.
We agree with the OCA that respondent judge acted correctly in not issuing a writ of execution/possession. His action was consistent with the Decision of this Court in GR No. 123417 affirming that of the MTC as to damages. Besides, the latter's Order directing defendants not to molest complainants in their peaceful possession was rendered moot when they were ousted from the disputed lots by virtue of the final and executory judgments in Civil Case No. 1920 and DARAB Case No. 2413. Indeed, the execution of a final judgment may be refused, as in this case, when there has been a change in the situation of the parties that would make its execution inequitable.[6]