G.R. No.

141853       February 7, 2001 and consolidation of ownership of the subject property in favor of the De
TERESITA V. IDOLOR, petitioner vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS Guzman spouses. The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration
filed by the de Guzman spouses.
Facts:
Issue:
Teresita borrowed money from spouses Gumersindo De Guzman
amounting to 520,000.00 subjected to a real property mortgage w/ Whether or not the respondent Court erred in finding that the trial court
extrajudicial foreclosure agreement of her 200sq meter property located in committed grave abuse of discretion in enjoining the private and public
QC. respondents from causing the issuance of a final deed of sale and
consolidation of ownership of the subject parcel of land in favor of private
Due to the non-payment of the loan, the spouses went to the barangay respondents?
and there they made a kasunduan to settle the said loan. Petitioner failed
to comply with her undertaking; thus private respondent Gumersindo filed Held:
a motion for execution before the Office of the Barangay captain who
subsequently issued a certification to file action. Injunction is a preservative remedy aimed at protecting substantive rights
and interests.6 Before an injunction can be issued, it is essential that the
On March 21, 1997, respondent Gumersindo De Guzman filed an extra following requisites be present: 1) there must be aright in esse or the
judicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage pursuant to the parties existence of a right to be protected; 2) the act against which the injunction
agreement set forth in the real estate mortgage dated March 21, 1994. is to be directed is a violation of such right. 7 Hence the existence of a right
violated, is a prerequisite to the granting of an injunction. Injunction is not
On May 23, 1997, the mortgaged property was sold in a public auction to designed to protect contingent or future rights. Failure to establish either
respondent Gumersindo, as the highest bidder and consequently, the the existence of a clear and positive right which should be judicially
Sheriff's Certificate of Sale was registered with the Registry of Deeds of protected through the writ of injunction or that the defendant has
Quezon City on June 23, 1997. committed or has attempted to commit any act which has endangered or
tends to endanger the existence of said right, is a sufficient ground for
denying the injunction.8 The controlling reason for the existence of the
On June 25, 1998, petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
judicial power to issue the writ is that the court may thereby prevent a
City, Branch 220, a complaint for annulment of Sheriff's Certificate of Sale
threatened or continuous irremediable injury to some of the parties before
with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a
their claims can be thoroughly investigated and advisedly adjudicated. 9 It is
writ of preliminary injunction against private respondents, Deputy Sheriffs
to be resorted to only when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious
Marino Cachero and Rodolfo Lescano and the Registry of Deeds of
consequences which cannot be remedied under any standard of
Quezon City alleging among others alleged irregularity and lack of notice
compensation.
in the extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings subject of the real estate
mortgage. In the meantime, a temporary restraining order was issued by
In the instant case, we agree with the respondent Court that petitioner has
the trial court.t
no more proprietary right to speak of over the foreclosed property to entitle
her to the issuance of a writ of injunction. It appears that the mortgaged
On July 28, 1998, the trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction property was sold in a public auction to private respondent Gumersindo on
enjoining private respondents, the Deputy Sheriffs and the Registry of May 23, 1997 and the sheriff's certificate of sale was registered with the
Deeds of Quezon City from causing the issuance of a final deed of sale Registry of Deeds of Quezon City on June 23, 1997. Petitioner had one
year from the registration of the sheriff's sale to redeem the property but Held:
she failed to exercise her right on or before June 23, 1998, thus spouses
de Guzman are now entitled to a conveyance and possession of the Before an injunctive writ can be issued, it is essential that the following
foreclosed property. requisites be present:

(1) there must be a right in esse or the existence of a right to be protected;

A.M. No. MTJ-00-1250. February 28, 2001 and
RIMEO S. GUSTILO, Complainant, v. HON. RICARDO S. REAL, SR.,
Presiding Judge, 2nd Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Victorias- (2) the act against which injunction to be directed is a violation of such
Manapla right.

Facts: The onus probandi is on movant to show that there exists a right to be
Complainant avers that he was a candidate for punong barangay of protected, which is directly threatened by the act sought to be enjoined.
Barangay Punta Mesa, Manapla, Negros Occidental in the May 12, 1997 Further, there must be a showing that the invasion of the right is material
elections. His lone opponent was Weddy C. Libo-on, then the incumbent and substantial and that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for
punong barangay and the representative of the Association of Barangay the writ to prevent a serious damage. 12 In this case, complainant had
Captains (ABC) to the Sangguniang Bayan of Manapla and the been duly proclaimed as the winning candidate for punong barangay. He
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Negros Occidental. Both complainant and had taken his oath of office. Unless his election was annulled, he was
Libo-on garnered eight hundred nineteen (819) votes during the elections, entitled to all the rights of said office. We do not see how the complainant’s
resulting in a tie. The breaking of the tie by the Board of Canvassers was exercise of such rights would cause an irreparable injury or violate the right
in complainant’s favor and he was proclaimed duly elected punong of the losing candidate so as to justify the issuance of a temporary
barangay of Punta Mesa, Manapla. restraining order "to maintain the status quo." We see no reason to
disagree with the finding of the OCA that the evident purpose of the
Libo-on filed an election protest at the MCTC Negros Occidental, he second TRO was to prevent complainant from participating in the election
sought for recounting with preliminary prohibitory injunction and damages. of the Liga ng mga Barangay. Respondent must be held liable for violating
The Complainant Rimeo Gustilo is not aware of the said case and even Rule 3.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which provides that, "In every
the TRO issued by the judge as there were no copy of such orders was case, a judge shall endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts and the
given to him. applicable law unswayed by partisan interests, public opinion, or fear of
criticism.
Rimeo filed a petition for certiorari with the RTC and the TRO issued was
lifted and declared null and void as duly elected punong barangay. In spite Lagrosas vs Bristol Myers
of such order from the RTC, the judge in the MCTC court issued a second G.R. No. 168637
TRO to maintain the status quo between the contracting parties. With this
an administrative case was lodge with the SC. Facts:

Issue: Michael J. Lagrosas was employed by Bristol-Myers Squibb (Phil.),

Inc./Mead Johnson Phil. from January 6, 1997 until March 23, 2000 as
WoN the Preliminary Injunction was valid or not? Territory Manager in its Medical Sales Force Division. On February 4,
2000, Ma. Dulcinea S. Lim, also a Territory Manager and Lagrosas’ former
girlfriend, attended a district meeting of territory managers at McDonald’s
Alabang Town Center. After the meeting, she dined out with her friends. The injunction bond is intended as a security for damages in case it is
She left her car at McDonald’s and rode with Cesar R. Menquito, Jr. When finally decided that the injunction ought not to have been granted. Its
they returned to McDonald’s, Lim saw Lagrosas’ car parked beside her principal purpose is to protect the enjoined party against loss or damage
car. Lim told Menquito not to stop his car but Lagrosas followed them and by reason of the injunction, and the bond is usually conditioned
slammed Menquito’s car thrice. Menquito and Lim alighted from the car. accordingly.31
Lagrosas approached them and hit Menquito with a metal steering wheel
lock. When Lim tried to intervene, Lagrosas accidentally hit her head. In this case, the Court of Appeals issued the writ of preliminary injunction
to enjoin the implementation of the writ of execution and notices of
Bristol Myers called Lagrosas and asked him to explain his actions. Upon garnishment "pending final resolution of this case or unless the [w]rit is
investigation the company decided to terminate him effective immediately. sooner lifted by the Court.
With this Lagrosas filed with the Labor Arbiter an action for illegal dismissal
in which he won. Bristol Myers appealed to the NLRC and the decision Notably, the appellate court ruled that Lagrosas had no right to the
was reversed and then Lagrosas requested for MR and the decision was monetary awards granted by the labor arbiter and the NLRC, and that the
again reversed on his favor on the ground that the misconduct was not implementation of the writ of execution and notices of garnishment was
work related. With this Bristol moved to quash the writ of execution issued properly enjoined. This in effect amounted to a finding that Lagrosas did
by the NLRC by way of a petition for certiorari appeal to the CA with not sustain any damage by reason of the injunction. To reiterate, the
preliminary injunction. Bristol requested for the cash bond be discharged injunction bond is intended to protect Lagrosas against loss or damage by
since it already posted for an injunction cash bond. The CA decided in reason of the injunction only. Contrary to Lagrosas’ claim, it is not a
favor of Bristol and thus the company requested for the release of the cash security for the judgment award by the labor arbiter.
bond and the injunction bond. The CA partially granted the release of the
cash bond for the TRO but did not release the bond for the preliminary Jenosa vs University of San Augustin
injunction saying that the case has not yet been final and executory as the G.R. No. 172138 September 8, 2010
case was appealed with the SC by Lagrosas.
Facts:
Issue: On 22 November 2002, some students of the University, among them
petitioners Niño Carlo Jenosa, Patrick Canto, Cyndy Apalisok, Clint
WON the withholding of the injunction bond is proper or not? Eduard Vargas, and Nonell Gregory Duro (petitioner students), were
caught engaging in hazing outside the school premises.1awphi1 The
Held: hazing incident was entered into the blotter of the Iloilo City Police.

A preliminary injunction may be granted only when, among other things, AS agreed upon by the school administrators, involved students and their
the applicant, not explicitly exempted, files with the court where the action parents that instead of the possibility of being charged and found guilty of
or proceeding is pending, a bond executed to the party or person enjoined, hazing, the students who participated in the hazing incident as initiators,
in an amount to be fixed by the court, to the effect that the applicant will including petitioner students, would just transfer to another school, while
pay such party or person all damages which he may sustain by reason of those who participated as neophytes would be suspended for one month.
the injunction or temporary restraining order if the court should finally The parents of the apprehended students, including petitioners, affixed
decide that the applicant was not entitled thereto. Upon approval of the their signatures to the minutes of the meeting to signify their conformity.
requisite bond, a writ of preliminary injunction shall be issued.30
The parents then suddenly sent a letter to the University President urging (2) he who comes into equity must come with clean hands.
him not to implement the agreement that the Principal ordered the
immediate transfer of the students without convening with the COSD. The The latter is a frequently stated maxim which is also expressed in the
parents filed a case for damages with prayer for a writ of injunction. They principle that he who has done inequity shall not have equity. It signifies
said that the decision of the principal is in violation of their children’s due that a litigant may be denied relief by a court of equity on the ground that
process because the COSD was not convened. The writ was issued and his conduct has been inequitable, unfair and dishonest, or fraudulent, or
the children be allowed to attend class while in trial. deceitful as to the controversy in issue.

The respondents filed a MR but it was denied by the RTC of Iloilo. They Solid Builders vs China Bank
also filed a motion to dismiss as the jurisdiction of such case should be G.R. No. 179665               April 3, 2013
with the Dep Ed and that they are guilty of forum shopping. The parents
sent a letter to the Dep Ed to request for the release of the report cards of Facts:
their children but the school denied it due to that such records are wit the China Bank extended loans for SBI amounting to almost 140M and Medina
disciplinary board. Thus another complaint for mandatory injunction was Foods secured a surety agreements and contracts of Real Estate
filed by the parents against the school to compel them to release the Mortgage. SBI proposed to China Bank a 50-50 share proceeds for the
records. The RTC issued another Injunction for the release of the report sale of the said Real Properties, until such time the obligation if full paid.
cards. The School filed a MR but was denied. The resolution of the Board Due to a request of restructure of the loan with China Bank, in spite of
was released and effectively removed the involved students from its rolls. back and forth discussion. SBI was not able to comply with its obligations,
Thus the school filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. The CA decided they are contending that such interest rates are iniquitous and
in favor of the school and dismissed the two civil cases. Thus this appeal unconscionable.
with the SC.
To enjoin China Bank from foreclosing the properties the two companies
Issue: filed a complaint for specific performance and damages with preliminary
injunction and TRO in the RTC of Pasig City. They alleged on their
WON the injunction is valid? complaint that an injunction is proper due to the following grounds:

Held: 1. that such acts are in violation of the rights of plaintiffs and, if not
enjoined/restrained, will render the judgment sought herein
Then petitioners reneged on their agreement without any justifiable ineffectual.
reason. Since petitioners’ present complaint is one for injunction, and 2. t is necessary to require, through preliminary injunction, CBC to
injunction is the strong arm of equity, petitioners must come to court with refrain from immediately enforcing its letters dated April 17, 2000
clean hands. and May 19, 2000 and September 18, 2000 during the pendency
of this complaint
Since injunction is the strong arm of equity, he who must apply for it must
come with equity or with clean hands. This is so because among the The Bank opposed the claims of the SBI, upon hearing the trail court
maxims of equity are issued a writ of preliminary injunction in favor of SBI and ordered a
payment of bond amounting to 2M. The bank filed a MR but it was
(1) he who seeks equity must do equity, and denied. Thus appeal to CA, The CA upon examination found no clear
and unmistakable right on the part of SBI and MFII that would entitle
 them to the protection of a writ of preliminary injunction. Thus CA lifted affect the other terms thereof. 31 Thus, in a usurious loan with mortgage,
the injunction in favor of China Bank. Thus SBI filed its petition for the right to foreclose the mortgage subsists, and this right can be
certiorari with the SC. exercised by the creditor upon failure by the debtor to pay the debt due. 32

Issue: Second, even the Order dated December 14, 2000 of the trial court, which
granted the application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction,
WON the lifting of the preliminary injunction by the CA is proper? recognizes that the parties still have to be heard on the alleged lack of
"fairness of the increase in interests and penalties" during the trial on the
Held: merits.33 Thus, the basis of the right claimed by SBI and MFII remains to
be controversial or disputable as there is still a need to determine whether
Yes the lifting of the writ is proper. A preliminary injunction is an order or not, upon consideration of the various circumstances surrounding the
granted at any stage of an action prior to judgment of final order, agreement of the parties, the interest rates and penalty charges are
requiring a party, court, agency, or person to refrain from a particular unconscionable. Therefore, such claimed right cannot be considered clear,
act or acts. It is a preservative remedy to ensure the protection of a actual and subsisting. In the absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of
party’s substantive rights or interests pending the final judgment in the the injunctive writ constitutes grave abuse of discretion
principal action. A plea for an injunctive writ lies upon the existence of
a claimed emergency or extraordinary situation which should be As SBI is not entitled to the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, so
avoided for otherwise, the outcome of a litigation would be useless as is MFII. The accessory follows the principal. The accessory obligation of
far as the party applying for the writ is concerned. MFII as accommodation mortgagor and surety is tied to SBI’s principal
obligation to CBC and arises only in the event of SBI’s default.
A writ of preliminary injunction is an extraordinary event which must be
granted only in the face of actual and existing substantial rights. The
duty of the court taking cognizance of a prayer for a writ of preliminary Thus, MFII’s interest in the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction is
injunction is to determine whether the requisites necessary for the necessarily prejudiced by SBI’s wrongful conduct and breach of contract.
grant of an injunction are present in the case before it. 25 In this
connection, a writ of preliminary injunction is issued to preserve the Plaza vs Lustiva
status quo ante, upon the applicant’s showing of two important G.R. No. 172909               March 5, 2014
requisite conditions, namely: (1) the right to be protected exists prima
facie, and (2) the acts sought to be enjoined are violative of that right. Facts:
It must be proven that the violation sought to be prevented would The Plaza siblings, namely: Aureliano, Emiliana, Vidal, Marciano, and
cause an irreparable injury. Barbara, Barbara was the owner of the subject agricultural land. The
decision became final and executory and Barbara's successors,
respondents Guillermo Lustiva, Eleodora Vda. de Martinez and Vicky
As debtor-mortgagors, however, SBI and MFII do not have a right to Sayson Goloseno, have continued occupying the property.
prevent the creditor-mortgagee CBC from foreclosing on the mortgaged
properties simply on the basis of alleged "usurious, exorbitant and The petitioners, filed a Complaint for Injunction, Damages, Attorney’s Fees
confiscatory rate of interest."30 First, assuming that the interest rate agreed with Prayer for the Issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or
upon by the parties is usurious, the nullity of the stipulation of usurious Temporary Restraining Order against the respondents and the City
interest does not affect the lender’s right to recover the principal loan, nor Government of Butuan. They prayed that the respondents be enjoined
from unlawfully and illegally threatening to take possession of the subject remedy; it is auxiliary, an adjunct of, and subject to the determination of
property. According to the petitioners, they acquired the land from Virginia the main action. It is deemed lifted upon the dismissal of the main case,
Tuazon in 1997; Tuazon was the sole bidder and winner in a tax any appeal therefrom notwithstanding.
delinquency sale conducted by the City of Butuan on December 27, 1996.
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. ERNESTO M. DE
The respondents pointed out that they were never delinquent in paying the CHAVEZ, ROLANDO L. LONTOC, SR., DR. PORFIRIO C. LIGAYA,
land taxes and were in fact not aware that their property had been offered ROLANDO L. LONTOC, JR. AND GLORIA M. MENDOZA,
for public auction and that such tax declaration was falsified.
G.R. No. 172206, July 03, 2013
The RTC denied the TRO and petition for preliminary attachment. The
RTC found that the auction sale was tainted with irregularity as the bidder FACTS:
was a government employee disqualified in accordance with Section 89 of
the Local Government Code of 1991. The petitioners are not buyers in the BSU-BOR received an Order from Deputy Ombudsman Victor
good faith either. On the contrary, they were in bad faith for having falsified Fernandez directing the former to enforce the aforementioned Office of the
the tax declaration they redeemed the property with. Ombudsman's Joint Decision and Supplemental Resolution.

CA affirms RTC decision and thus appealed to SC. The BSU-BOR issued Resolution No. 18, resolving to implement the Order
of the Office of the Ombudsman.  Thus, herein respondents filed a petition
Held: for injunction with prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order or
preliminary injunction before the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City,
As the lower courts correctly found, Tuazon had no ownership to confer to Branch 4 (RTC), against the BSU-BOR.  The gist of the petition before the
the petitioners despite the latter’s reimbursement of Tuazon’s purchase RTC is that the BSU-BOR should be enjoined from enforcing the
expenses. Because they were never owners of the property, the Ombudsman's Joint Decision and Supplemental Resolution because the
petitioners failed to establish entitlement to the writ of preliminary same are still on appeal and, therefore, are not yet final and executory.
injunction. "[T]o be entitled to an injunctive writ, the right to be protected
and the violation against that right must be shown. A writ of preliminary The RTC dismissed the petition and the TRO, thus respondents appealed
injunction may be issued only upon clear showing of an actual existing to the CA and CA granted the Writ of Preliminary Injunction and TRO to
right to be protected during the pendency of the principal action. When the enjoined the parties. The Ombudsman intervened and requested for the
complainant’s right or title is doubtful or disputed, he does not have a clear TRO to be lifted but CA denied, thus was raised to SC by certiorari.
legal right and, therefore, the issuance of injunctive relief is not proper.
Issue:
Likewise, upon the dismissal of the main case by the RTC on August 8,
2013, the question of issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction has WON the issuance of the TRO and Writ of Injunction is proper?
become moot and academic. In Arevalo v. Planters Development
Bank,24 the Court ruled that a case becomes moot and academic when Held:
there is no more issue between the parties or object that can be served in
deciding the merits of the case. Upon the dismissal of the main action, the The Court must clarify that a petition for review on certiorari is not the
question of the non-issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction proper remedy to question the CA  Resolution dated April 7, 2006 granting
automatically died with it. A writ of preliminary injunction is a provisional the Writ of Preliminary Injunction and denying petitioner's motion for
intervention. Said Resolution did not completely dispose of the case on the encroach on the rule-making powers of the Office of the Ombudsman
merits, hence, it is merely an interlocutory order. However, where the under the Constitution and RA 6770 as the injunctive writ will render
assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous and the remedy of nugatory the provisions of Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of
appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief, the Court Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman.
allows certiorari  as a mode of redress.
Novecio vs Lim
Here, since its power to ensure enforcement of its Joint Decision and G.R. No. 193809, March 23, 2015
Supplemental Resolution is in danger of being impaired, the Office of the
Ombudsman had a clear legal interest in defending its right to have its Facts:
judgment carried out.  The CA patently erred in denying the Office of the
Ombudsman's motion for intervention. The respondents alleged that on February 15, 2004, the petitioners, by
force, intimidation, threat, strategy and stealth, unlawfully squatted and
Note that for a writ of preliminary injunction to issue, the following essential took possession of several portions of land with an area of eight (8)
requisites must concur, to wit:  (1) that the invasion of the right is material hectares, described as Project No. 9, Block 1, LC Map No. 777. The
and substantial; (2) that the right of complainant is clear and unmistakable; petitioners allegedly planted crops, erected makeshift shelters, and
and, (3) that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to continue to plant and /or improve the shelters as of the filing of the
prevent serious damage.8  In the present case, the right of respondents complaints for forcible entry, all without the consent and/or against the will
cannot be said to be clear and unmistakable, because the prevailing of the respondents.
jurisprudence is that the penalty of dismissal from the service meted on
government employees or officials is immediately executory in accordance The petitioners, on the other hand, contended that they have already been
with the valid rule of execution pending appeal uniformly observed in in possession of the land for more than two years when the complaints
administrative disciplinary cases. were filed. They maintained that they have planted the land with corn,
durian, coconut, mango, jackfruit, rambutan, etc. for their livelihood. They
An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory. In case also alleged that they were harassed by some men armed with shotguns
the penalty is suspension or removal and the respondent wins such and pistols on February 12, 2004.
appeal, he shall be considered as having been under preventive
suspension and shall be paid the salary and such other emoluments The MTC found that the respondents anchored their alleged prior
that he did not receive by reason of the suspension or removal. possession on the fact that they have applied title for the land as shown by
a certification authorizing land survey. The MTC ruled in favor of Novecio
A decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases after able to prove that they are residents of such barangay. However as
shall be executed as a matter of course. The Office of the Ombudsman appeal in RTC, this was reversed as the RTC appreciated other pieces of
shall ensure that the decision shall be strictly enforced and properly evidence such as the Department of Environment and Natural Resources -
implemented. The refusal or failure by any officer without just cause to Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (DENR-CENRO)
comply with an order of the Office of the Ombudsman to remove, suspend, showing that the land in litigation is the subject of an application for title
demote, fine, or censure shall be a ground for disciplinary action against and claim by the respondents. The RTC also took judicial notice of the
such officer. request for authority to conduct a survey over the subject property, which
provides that "the parcel of land herein treated was an unsurveyed land
For the CA to issue a preliminary injunction that will stay the penalty and Manuel V. Nieto was the identified occupant and tiller of the land." 14
imposed by the Ombudsman in an administrative case would be to
In view of these, the RTC ruled that the respondents were the actual execution of the RTC decision is probably in violation of the rights of the
occupants of the property in litigation long before the petitioners had taken petitioners, tending to render the MTC judgment dismissing the forcible
possession of the same property. The RTC ordered the petitioners' entry cases ineffectual.
ejectment.
Moreover, the court in granting or dismissing an application for a writ of
The Petitioners appeal its case to the CA, the P. Injunction was denied preliminary injunction based on the pleadings of the parties and their
without any reason at all and thus they raised the issue to the SC. respective evidence must state in its order the findings and conclusions
based on the evidence and the law. This is to enable the appellate court to
Issue: determine whether the trial court committed grave abuse of its discretion
amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in resolving, one way or the
The sole issue is whether or not the CA acted with grave abuse of other, the plea for injunctive relief.26
discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, when it denied the
petitioners' prayer for preliminary injunction. Thus, we do not understand why the CA denied the prayer for preliminary
injunction without citing any legal or factual basis for the denial.
Held:
LIBERTY BROADCASTING NETWORK, INC., NOW KNOWN AS WI-
Subject to this clarification, we find that the CA committed grave abuse of TRIBE TELECOMS, INC., Petitioner, v. ATLOCOM WIRELESS SYSTEM,
discretion when it denied the injunctive relief prayed for by the petitioners. INC
G.R. No. 208916
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 Facts:
to be defended. As this Court has previously ruled, "while the existence of Atlocom is a grantee of a legislative franchise under Republic Act (R.A.)
the right need not be conclusively established, it must be clear." 23 No. 8605. The frequencies were reallocated by NTC thru an Order.
Atlocom filed in the RTC to enjoin the implementation of the Order and to
A writ of preliminary injunction is generally based solely on initial or declare it null and void for violation of due process. RTC denied the
incomplete evidence. Such evidence need only be a sampling intended petition for P. Injunction and thus a petition for certiorari was filed with the
merely to give the court an evidence of justification for a preliminary CA. CA granted the Prohibitory Injunction was granted but the mandatory
injunction pending the decision on the merits of the case, and is not injunction was denied. Thus NTC and Liberty Network filed a counter bond
conclusive of the principal action which has yet to be decided. 24 and elevated the issue to the SC.

In a prayer for preliminary injunction, the plaintiff is not required to Issue:

submit conclusive and complete evidence. He is only required to
show that he has an ostensible right to the final relief prayed for in The main issues to be resolved are: (1) whether Atlocom complied with the
his complaint.25 requisites for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction; and (2) whether
In this case, the petitioners have adequately shown their entitlement to a LBNI's motion to file counter-bond was correctly denied by the CA.
preliminary injunction. First, the relief demanded consists in restraining the
execution of the RTC decision ordering their ejectment from the disputed Held:
land. Second, their ejectment from the land from which they derive their
source of livelihood would work injustice to the petitioners. Finally, the
The following requisites must be proved before a writ of preliminary possession of about 50 hectares of land located in the western portion of
injunction will issue: Palaui Island in Sitio Siwangag, Sta. Ana, Cagayan which he, with the help
(1) The applicant must have a clear and unmistakable right to be of Aetas and other people under his care, cleared and developed for
protected, that is, a right in esse; agricultural purposes in order to support his charitable, humanitarian and
(2) There is a material and substantial invasion of such right; (3) There is missionary works.
an urgent need for the writ to prevent irreparable injury to the applicant;
and
(4) No other ordinary, speedy, and adequate remedy exists to prevent the President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Proclamation No. 201 reserving for
infliction of irreparable injury. military purposes a parcel of the public domain situated in Palaui Island.
Pursuant thereto, 2,000 hectares of the southern half portion of the Palaui
CA justified that it issued the writ because NTC failed to act upon Island were withdrawn from sale or settlement and reserved for the use of
Atlocom's motion for extension for more than three years, and concluded the Philippine Navy, subject, however, to private rights if there be any.
that because of NTC's inordinate delay or refusal to renew the PA granted
to Atlocom. More than two decades later or on August 16, 1994, President Fidel V.
Ramos issued Proclamation No. 447 declaring Palaui Island and the
We do not concur with the CA in holding that NTC's inaction or delay on surrounding waters situated in the Municipality of Sta. Ana, Cagayan as
Atlocom's application for extension of PA had violated the latter's right to marine reserve. Again subject to any private rights, the entire Palaui Island
due process because it resulted in depriving Atlocom of the use of consisting of an aggregate area of 7,415.48 hectares was accordingly
frequencies which were re-allocated through the issuance of MC 06-08- reserved as a marine protected area.
2005. Such declaration rather conveys an inaccurate picture of the
regulatory process for public broadcasting and telecommunications
services. Rev Cortez filed a Petition for Injunction with Prayer for the Issuance of a
Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction5 against Rogelio C. Biñas (Biñas)
A right to be protected by injunction, means a right clearly founded on or in his capacity as Commanding Officer of the Philippine Naval Command
granted by law or is enforceable as a matter of law. 29 An injunction is not a in Port San Vicente, Sta. Ana, Cagayan.1âwphi1 According to him, some
remedy to protect or enforce contingent, abstract, or future rights; it will not members of the Philippine Navy, upon orders of Biñas, disturbed his
issue to protect a right not in esse, and which may never arise, or to peaceful and lawful possession of the said 50-hectare portion of Palaui
restrain an act which does not give rise to a cause of action. 30chan Island when on March 15, 2000, they commanded him and his men,
through the use of force and intimidation, to vacate the area. When he
sought assistance from the Office of the Philippine Naval Command, he
was met with sarcastic remarks and threatened with drastic military action
Republic vs Cortez if they do not vacate. Thus, Rev. Cortez and his men were constrained to
GR. No. 197472 leave the area. In view of these, Rev. Cortez filed the said Petition with the
RTC seeking preliminary mandatory injunction ordering Biñas to restore to
Facts: him possession and to not disturb the same, and further, for the said
Rev. Claudio R. Cortez, Sr. (Rev. Cortez), a missionary by vocation preliminary writ, if issued, to be made permanent.
engaged in humanitarian and charitable activities, established an
orphanage and school in Punta Verde, Palaui Island, San Vicente, Sta.
Ana, Cagayan. He claimed that since 1962, he has been in peaceful
RTC ruled in favor of the injunction permanently in view of the Indigenous is only after the court has come up with a definite pronouncement
People’s Act. Thus, the OSG appealed to the CA for review, CA ruled in respecting an applicant’s right and of the act violative of such right, based
favor of the indigenous people. Thus this appeal to SC. 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
Issue: act violative thereof must be established by the applicant with absolute
The ultimate issue to be resolved in this case is whether Rev. Cortez is certainty.32
entitled to a final writ of mandatory injunction
As there has been no showing that the subject parcels of land had been
Held: segregated from the military reservation, the respondents had to prove that
the subject properties were alienable or disposable land of the public
"Injunction is a judicial writ, process or proceeding whereby a party is domain prior to its withdrawal from sale and settlement and reservation for
directed either to do a particular act, in which case it is called a mandatory military purposes under Presidential Proclamation No. 265. The question is
injunction, [as in this case,] or to refrain from doing a particular act, in primordial importance because it is determinative if the land can in fact be
which case it is called a prohibitory injunction." 20 "It may be the main action subject to acquisitive prescription and, thus, registrable under the Torrens
or merely a provisional remedy for and as an incident in the main action." 21 system. Without first determining the nature and character of the land, all
other requirements such as length and nature of possession and
"The main action for injunction is distinct from the provisional or ancillary occupation over such land do not come into play. The required length of
remedy of preliminary injunction." 22 A preliminary injunction does not possession does not operate when the land is part of the public domain.
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