Lawyerly

GR No. 197802

2015-11-11

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

A writ of preliminary injunction is generally based solely on initial and incomplete evidence.[30] The evidence submitted during the hearing on an application for a writ of preliminary injunction is not conclusive or complete for only a sampling is needed to give the trial court an idea of the justification for the preliminary injunction pending the decision of the case on the merits.[31] As such, the findings of fact and opinion of a court when issuing the writ of preliminary injunction are interlocutory in nature and made even before the trial on the merits is commenced or terminated.[32]

GR No. 205875

2015-06-30

LIBERTY BROADCASTING NETWORK v. ATLOCOM WIRELESS SYSTEM

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

A preliminary injunction is defined as "[a]n order granted at any stage of an action prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a party or a court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular actor acts."[17] It may be a prohibitory injunction, which requires a party to refrain from doing a particular act, or a mandatory injunction, which commands a party to perform a positive act to correct a wrong in the past.[18] It 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]

GR No. 167174

2013-09-23

SPS. CARMELITO v. CA

DEL CASTILLO, J.

We emphasize though that the evidence upon which the CA based its January 3, 2005 Resolution is not conclusive as to result in the automatic issuance of a final injunction. "The evidence submitted [for purposes of issuing] a [W]rit of [P]reliminary [I]njunction is not conclusive or complete for only a 'sampling' is needed to give the x x x court an idea of the justification for the preliminary injunction pending the decision of the case on the merits."[95] In the same vein, our Decision in this case is without prejudice to whatever final resolution the CA and Branch 268 may arrive at in CA-G.R. SP No. 86363 and Civil Case Nos. 69979 and 69949, respectively.

GR No. 167057

2012-04-11

NERWIN INDUSTRIES CORPORATION v. PNOC-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

BERSAMIN, J.

In this regard, the Rules of Court grants a broad latitude to the trial courts considering that conflicting claims in an application for a provisional writ more often than not involve and require a factual determination that is not the function of the appellate courts.[19] Nonetheless, the exercise of such discretion must be sound, that is, the issuance of the writ, though discretionary, should be upon the grounds and in the manner provided by law.[20] When that is done, the exercise of sound discretion by the issuing court in injunctive matters must not be interfered with except when there is manifest abuse.[21]

GR No. 152272

2012-03-05

JUANA COMPLEX I HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION v. FIL-ESTATE LAND

MENDOZA, J.

Due process considerations dictate that the assailed injunctive writ is not a judgment on the merits but merely an order for the grant of a provisional and ancillary remedy to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard. The hearing on the application for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is separate and distinct from the trial on the merits of the main case. [29] The evidence submitted during the hearing of the incident is not conclusive or complete for only a "sampling" is needed to give the trial court an idea of the justification for the preliminary injunction pending the decision of the case on the merits.[30] There are vital facts that have yet to be presented during the trial which may not be obtained or presented during the hearing on the application for the injunctive writ.[31] Moreover, the quantum of evidence required for one is different from that for the other.[32]

GR No. 152500

2011-09-14

PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v. SANDIGANBAYAN

PERALTA, J.

To be sure, the provisional remedy, like any other interlocutory order, cannot survive the main case of which it is but an incident.[48] The findings of fact and opinion of a court when issuing (or denying) the writ of preliminary injunction are interlocutory in nature and made even before the trial on the merits is commenced or terminated.[49] Thus, the May 27, 1986 interlocutory order of the Court died with the dismissal of the main case in G.R. No. 74302. The right of TDFSI to re-file the main case carries with it its right to apply for the provisional remedies available under the Rules of Court.

GR No. 171624

2010-12-06

BF HOMES v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Since the RTC had no jurisdiction over the Petition of BF Homes and PWCC in Civil Case No. 03-0151, then it was also devoid of any authority to act on the application of BF Homes and PWCC for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction contained in the same Petition. The ancillary and provisional remedy of preliminary injunction cannot exist except only as an incident of an independent action or proceeding.[28]

GR No. 157952

2009-09-08

JOWETT K. GOLANGCO

BERSAMIN, J.

We find that the trial judge did not act capriciously, arbitrarily or whimsically in issuing the assailed order. Thus, the Court of Appeals properly dismissed the petition for certiorari. The petitioner now needs to be reminded that certiorari is an extraordinary remedy to correct a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when an appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law is not available. In this regard, grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment that is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction whenever the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice or personal aversion amounting to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act at all in contemplation of law.[9]

GR No. 175371

2008-04-30

BENITO J. BRIZUELA v. ABRAHAM DINGLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Given the foregoing, the Court of Appeals correctly denied petitioner's application since there is a marked absence of any urgent necessity for the issuance of a TRO or writ of preliminary injunction.[38] Hence, the Court of Appeals could not have committed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing its Resolution dated 3 May 2006. It is a rule well-settled that for the extraordinary writ of certiorari to lie, there must be capricious, arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power.[39] There is none in this case.

GR No. 169802

2007-06-08

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

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

A preliminary injunction is granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order.[35] It persists until it is dissolved or until the termination of the action without the court issuing a final injunction.[36] To be entitled to an injunctive writ, petitioner must show, inter alia, the existence of a clear and unmistakable right and an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.[37] A writ of preliminary injunction is generally based solely on initial and incomplete evidence.[38] The evidence submitted during the hearing on an application for a writ of preliminary injunction is not conclusive or complete for only a "sampling" is needed to give the trial court an idea of the justification for the preliminary injunction pending the decision of the case on the merits.[39] In fact, the evidence required to justify the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction in the hearing thereon need not be conclusive or complete.[40] It must also be stressed that it does not necessarily proceed that when a writ of preliminary injunction is issued, a final injunction will follow.[41]

GR NO. 169116

2007-03-28

BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. SPS. IRENEO M. SANTIAGO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In Toyota Motor Phils. Corp. Workers' Association v. Court of Appeals,[29] citing Ubanes, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,[30] we made the following declaration:[T]he matter of the issuance of writ of a preliminary injunction is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, unless the court commits a grave abuse of discretion. 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 whether the power is exercised 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. x x x.

GR NO. 165570

2006-02-23

EDWIN SALUSIANO MATUTINA v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Citing Urbanes, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,[11] petitioner argues that the issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction rests upon the sound discretion of the trial court.[12]

GR No. 157494

2004-12-10

BACOLOD CITY WATER DISTRICT v. EMMA C. LABAYEN

PUNO, J.

The main action for injunction is distinct from the provisional or ancillary remedy of preliminary injunction which cannot exist except only as part or an incident of an independent action or proceeding. As a matter of course, in an action for injunction, the auxiliary remedy of preliminary injunction, whether prohibitory or mandatory, may issue. Under the law, the main action for injunction seeks a judgment embodying a final injunction which is distinct from, and should not be confused with, the provisional remedy of preliminary injunction, the sole object of which is to preserve the status quo until the merits can be heard.[44] A preliminary injunction is granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order. It persists until it is dissolved or until the termination of the action without the court issuing a final injunction.[45]

GR No. 136114

2004-01-22

LANDBANK OF PHILIPPINES v. CONTINENTAL WATCHMAN AGENCY INCORPORATED

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Even assuming that the present petition is a proper remedy, still it is dismissible. Based on the evidence presented by private respondent, the trial court found that all the requisites for the issuance of an injunctive writ were present.[13] Although petitioner presented evidence to rebut private respondent's assertions, those will be better assessed and considered in the trial proper. The assailed injunctive writ is not a judgment on the merits of the case, contrary to the submission of petitioner, for a writ of preliminary injunction is generally based solely on initial and incomplete evidence. The evidence submitted during the hearing of the incident is not conclusive or complete for only a "sampling" is needed to give the trial court an idea of the justification for the preliminary injunction pending the decision of the case on the merits.[14] As such, the findings of fact and opinion of a court when issuing the writ of preliminary injunction are interlocutory in nature and made before the trial on the merits is commenced or terminated. Furthermore, it does not necessarily proceed that when a writ of preliminary injunction is issued, a final injunction will follow, as erroneously argued by petitioner. There are vital facts that have yet to be presented during the trial which may not be obtained or presented during the hearing on the application for the injunctive writ.[15] Clearly, petitioner's contention that the trial court and the Court of Appeals had already disposed of the main case lacks merit.

	GR No. 197802 2015-11-11	ZUNECA PHARMACEUTICAL v. NATRAPHARM VILLARAMA, JR., J.
A writ of preliminary injunction is generally based solely on initial and incomplete evidence.[30] The evidence submitted during the hearing on an application for a writ of preliminary injunction is not conclusive or complete for only a sampling is needed to give the trial court an idea of the justification for the preliminary injunction pending the decision of the case on the merits.[31] As such, the findings of fact and opinion of a court when issuing the writ of preliminary injunction are interlocutory in nature and made even before the trial on the merits is commenced or terminated.[32]
	GR No. 205875 2015-06-30	LIBERTY BROADCASTING NETWORK v. ATLOCOM WIRELESS SYSTEM VILLARAMA, JR., J.
A preliminary injunction is defined as "[a]n order granted at any stage of an action prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a party or a court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular actor acts."[17] It may be a prohibitory injunction, which requires a party to refrain from doing a particular act, or a mandatory injunction, which commands a party to perform a positive act to correct a wrong in the past.[18] It 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]
	GR No. 167174 2013-09-23	SPS. CARMELITO v. CA DEL CASTILLO, J.
We emphasize though that the evidence upon which the CA based its January 3, 2005 Resolution is not conclusive as to result in the automatic issuance of a final injunction. "The evidence submitted [for purposes of issuing] a [W]rit of [P]reliminary [I]njunction is not conclusive or complete for only a 'sampling' is needed to give the x x x court an idea of the justification for the preliminary injunction pending the decision of the case on the merits."[95] In the same vein, our Decision in this case is without prejudice to whatever final resolution the CA and Branch 268 may arrive at in CA-G.R. SP No. 86363 and Civil Case Nos. 69979 and 69949, respectively.
	GR No. 167057 2012-04-11	NERWIN INDUSTRIES CORPORATION v. PNOC-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BERSAMIN, J.
In this regard, the Rules of Court grants a broad latitude to the trial courts considering that conflicting claims in an application for a provisional writ more often than not involve and require a factual determination that is not the function of the appellate courts.[19] Nonetheless, the exercise of such discretion must be sound, that is, the issuance of the writ, though discretionary, should be upon the grounds and in the manner provided by law.[20] When that is done, the exercise of sound discretion by the issuing court in injunctive matters must not be interfered with except when there is manifest abuse.[21]
	GR No. 152272 2012-03-05	JUANA COMPLEX I HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION v. FIL-ESTATE LAND MENDOZA, J.
Due process considerations dictate that the assailed injunctive writ is not a judgment on the merits but merely an order for the grant of a provisional and ancillary remedy to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard. The hearing on the application for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is separate and distinct from the trial on the merits of the main case. [29] The evidence submitted during the hearing of the incident is not conclusive or complete for only a "sampling" is needed to give the trial court an idea of the justification for the preliminary injunction pending the decision of the case on the merits.[30] There are vital facts that have yet to be presented during the trial which may not be obtained or presented during the hearing on the application for the injunctive writ.[31] Moreover, the quantum of evidence required for one is different from that for the other.[32]
	GR No. 152500 2011-09-14	PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v. SANDIGANBAYAN PERALTA, J.
To be sure, the provisional remedy, like any other interlocutory order, cannot survive the main case of which it is but an incident.[48] The findings of fact and opinion of a court when issuing (or denying) the writ of preliminary injunction are interlocutory in nature and made even before the trial on the merits is commenced or terminated.[49] Thus, the May 27, 1986 interlocutory order of the Court died with the dismissal of the main case in G.R. No. 74302. The right of TDFSI to re-file the main case carries with it its right to apply for the provisional remedies available under the Rules of Court.
	GR No. 171624 2010-12-06	BF HOMES v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Since the RTC had no jurisdiction over the Petition of BF Homes and PWCC in Civil Case No. 03-0151, then it was also devoid of any authority to act on the application of BF Homes and PWCC for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction contained in the same Petition. The ancillary and provisional remedy of preliminary injunction cannot exist except only as an incident of an independent action or proceeding.[28]
	GR No. 157952 2009-09-08	JOWETT K. GOLANGCO BERSAMIN, J.
We find that the trial judge did not act capriciously, arbitrarily or whimsically in issuing the assailed order. Thus, the Court of Appeals properly dismissed the petition for certiorari. The petitioner now needs to be reminded that certiorari is an extraordinary remedy to correct a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when an appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law is not available. In this regard, grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment that is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction whenever the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice or personal aversion amounting to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act at all in contemplation of law.[9]
	GR No. 175371 2008-04-30	BENITO J. BRIZUELA v. ABRAHAM DINGLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Given the foregoing, the Court of Appeals correctly denied petitioner's application since there is a marked absence of any urgent necessity for the issuance of a TRO or writ of preliminary injunction.[38] Hence, the Court of Appeals could not have committed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing its Resolution dated 3 May 2006. It is a rule well-settled that for the extraordinary writ of certiorari to lie, there must be capricious, arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power.[39] There is none in this case.
	GR No. 169802 2007-06-08	OVERSEAS WORKERS WELFARE ADMINISTRATION v. ATTY. CESAR L. CHAVEZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A preliminary injunction is granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order.[35] It persists until it is dissolved or until the termination of the action without the court issuing a final injunction.[36] To be entitled to an injunctive writ, petitioner must show, inter alia, the existence of a clear and unmistakable right and an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.[37] A writ of preliminary injunction is generally based solely on initial and incomplete evidence.[38] The evidence submitted during the hearing on an application for a writ of preliminary injunction is not conclusive or complete for only a "sampling" is needed to give the trial court an idea of the justification for the preliminary injunction pending the decision of the case on the merits.[39] In fact, the evidence required to justify the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction in the hearing thereon need not be conclusive or complete.[40] It must also be stressed that it does not necessarily proceed that when a writ of preliminary injunction is issued, a final injunction will follow.[41]
	GR NO. 169116 2007-03-28	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. SPS. IRENEO M. SANTIAGO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Toyota Motor Phils. Corp. Workers' Association v. Court of Appeals,[29] citing Ubanes, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,[30] we made the following declaration:[T]he matter of the issuance of writ of a preliminary injunction is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, unless the court commits a grave abuse of discretion. 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 whether the power is exercised 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. x x x.
	GR NO. 165570 2006-02-23	EDWIN SALUSIANO MATUTINA v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK CARPIO MORALES, J.
Citing Urbanes, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,[11] petitioner argues that the issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction rests upon the sound discretion of the trial court.[12]
	GR No. 157494 2004-12-10	BACOLOD CITY WATER DISTRICT v. EMMA C. LABAYEN PUNO, J.
The main action for injunction is distinct from the provisional or ancillary remedy of preliminary injunction which cannot exist except only as part or an incident of an independent action or proceeding. As a matter of course, in an action for injunction, the auxiliary remedy of preliminary injunction, whether prohibitory or mandatory, may issue. Under the law, the main action for injunction seeks a judgment embodying a final injunction which is distinct from, and should not be confused with, the provisional remedy of preliminary injunction, the sole object of which is to preserve the status quo until the merits can be heard.[44] A preliminary injunction is granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order. It persists until it is dissolved or until the termination of the action without the court issuing a final injunction.[45]
	GR No. 136114 2004-01-22	LANDBANK OF PHILIPPINES v. CONTINENTAL WATCHMAN AGENCY INCORPORATED SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Even assuming that the present petition is a proper remedy, still it is dismissible. Based on the evidence presented by private respondent, the trial court found that all the requisites for the issuance of an injunctive writ were present.[13] Although petitioner presented evidence to rebut private respondent's assertions, those will be better assessed and considered in the trial proper. The assailed injunctive writ is not a judgment on the merits of the case, contrary to the submission of petitioner, for a writ of preliminary injunction is generally based solely on initial and incomplete evidence. The evidence submitted during the hearing of the incident is not conclusive or complete for only a "sampling" is needed to give the trial court an idea of the justification for the preliminary injunction pending the decision of the case on the merits.[14] As such, the findings of fact and opinion of a court when issuing the writ of preliminary injunction are interlocutory in nature and made before the trial on the merits is commenced or terminated. Furthermore, it does not necessarily proceed that when a writ of preliminary injunction is issued, a final injunction will follow, as erroneously argued by petitioner. There are vital facts that have yet to be presented during the trial which may not be obtained or presented during the hearing on the application for the injunctive writ.[15] Clearly, petitioner's contention that the trial court and the Court of Appeals had already disposed of the main case lacks merit.

PLACIDO O. URBANES v. CA