This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2016-02-03 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The distinguishing factor between the resolution of the provisional remedy and the main case lies in the temporary character of the ruling on the provisional relief, thus, the term "provisional."[45] The resolution of the provisional remedy, however, should be confined to the necessary issues attendant to its resolution without delving into the merits of the main case.[46] | |||||
|
2015-09-07 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "The main action for injunction is distinct from the provisional or ancillary remedy of preliminary injunction."[22] A preliminary injunction does not determine the merits of a case or decide controverted facts.[23] Since it is a mere preventive remedy, it only seeks to prevent threatened wrong, further injury and irreparable harm or injustice until the rights of the parties are settled.[24] "It is usually granted when it is made to appear that there is a substantial controversy between the parties and one of them is committing an act or threatening the immediate commission of an act that will cause irreparable injury or destroy the status quo of the controversy before a full hearing can be had on the merits of the case."[25] A preliminary injunction is granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to judgment or final order.[26] For its issuance, the applicant is required to show, at least tentatively, that he has a right which is not vitiated by any substantial challenge or contradiction.[27] Simply stated, the applicant needs only to show that he has the ostensible right to the final relief prayed for in his complaint.[28] On the other hand, the main action for injunction seeks a judgment that embodies a final injunction.[29] A final injunction is one which perpetually restrains the party or person enjoined from the commission or continuance of an act, or in case of mandatory injunctive writ, one which confirms the preliminary mandatory injuction.[30] It is issued when the court, after trial on the merits, is convinced that the applicant is entitled to have the act or acts complained of permanently enjoined.[31] Otherwise stated, it is only after the court has come up with a definite pronouncement respecting an applicant's right and of the act violative of such right, based on its appreciation of the evidence presented, that a final injunction is issued. To be a basis for a final and permanant injunction, the right and the act violative thereof must be established by the applicant with absolute certainty.[32] | |||||
|
2014-08-12 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Preliminary injunction is merely a provisional remedy that is adjunct to the main case, and is subject to the latter's outcome. It is not a cause of action itself.[22] It 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.[23] Following the dismissal of the petition for certiorari, there is no more legal basis to issue the writ of injunction sought. As an auxiliary remedy, the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction cannot be issued independently of the principal action.[24] | |||||
|
2013-03-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The sole object of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo of the parties until the merits of the case can be heard.[31] "A writ of preliminary injunction may be issued only upon clear showing by the applicant of the existence of the following: (1) a right in esse or a clear and unmistakable right to be protected; (2) a violation of that right; and (3) an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. In the absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of the injunctive writ constitutes grave abuse of discretion."[32] | |||||
|
2012-04-18 |
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. | |||||
|
2010-11-17 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Considering that the determination of the factual and legal issues presented in the case can proceed independent of those being litigated in the other cases filed against each other by the members of STRADEC's Board of Directors, we find that the CA finally erred in denying STRADEC's application of 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. A provisional remedy which has, for its object, the preservation of the status quo,[58] preliminary injunction may be resorted to by a party in order to preserve and protect certain rights and interests during the pendency of an action.[59] By both law and jurisprudence, said provisional writ 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.[60] | |||||