WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUCTION/TRO
CHINA BANKING CORPORATION vs. CIRIACO
G.R. No. 170038
July 11, 2012
A preliminary injunction is an 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 act or acts. It is the "strong arm of
equity," an extraordinary peremptory remedy that must be used with
extreme caution, affecting as it does the respective rights of the parties.30
Sections 3 and 5, Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure on
preliminary injunction, pertinent to this case, provide the requirements for
the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction or a TRO:
SEC. 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction. - A preliminary
injunction may be granted when it is established:
(a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or
part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of
the act or acts complained of, or in requiring the performance of an act or
acts, either for a limited period or perpetually;
(b) That the commission, continuance or non-performance of the act or acts
complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the
applicant; or
(c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is
attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act or acts
probably in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of
the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.
SEC. 5. Preliminary injunction not granted without notice; exception. - No
preliminary injunction shall be granted without hearing and prior notice to
the party or persons sought to be enjoined. If it shall appear from facts
shown by affidavits or by the verified application that great or irreparable
injury would result to the applicant before the matter can be heard on
notice, the court to which the application for preliminary injunction was
made, may issue ex parte a temporary restraining order to be effective only
for a period of twenty (20) days from service on the party or person sought
to be enjoined, except as herein provided. Within the twenty-day period,
the court must order said party or person to show cause at a specified time
and place, why the injunction should not be granted. The court shall also
determine, within the same period, whether or not the preliminary
injunction shall be granted, and accordingly issue the corresponding order.
However, subject to the provisions of the preceding sections, if the matter
is of extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and
irreparable injury, the executive judge of a multiple-sala court or the
presiding judge of a single-sala court may issue ex parte a temporary
restraining order effective for only seventy-two (72) hours from issuance
but shall immediately comply with the provisions of the next preceding
section as to service of summons and the documents to be served
therewith. Thereafter, within the aforesaid seventy-two (72) hours, the
judge before whom the case is pending shall conduct a summary hearing to
determine whether the temporary restraining order shall be extended until
the application for preliminary injunction can be heard. In no case shall the
total period of effectivity of the temporary restraining order exceed twenty
(20) days, including the original seventy-two hours provided herein.31
From the provisions, it appears clearly that before a writ of preliminary
injunction may be issued, a clear showing must be made that there exists
a right to be protected and that the acts against which the writ is to be
directed are violative of an established right. The holding of a hearing,
where both parties can introduce evidence and present their side, is also
required before the courts may issue a TRO or an injunctive writ.
Generally, an RTC's decision to grant or to deny injunctive relief will not be
set aside on appeal, unless the trial 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.
Every court should remember that an injunction is a limitation upon the
freedom of the defendant’s action and should not be granted lightly or
precipitately. It should be granted only when the court is fully satisfied that
the law permits it and the emergency demands it;37 no power exists whose
exercise is more delicate, which requires greater caution and deliberation,
or is more dangerous in a doubtful case, that the issuance of an
injunction.38
Delos Santos v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, G.R. No. 153852,
October 24, 2012,684 SCRA 410, 424 and Nerwin Industries Corporation
v. PNOC-Energy Development Corporation, G.R. No. 167057, April 11,
2012, 669 SCRA 173, 187
A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action or
proceeding prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a party or a
court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts. It may also
require the performance of a particular act or acts, in which case it shall be
known as a preliminary mandatory injunction. 38 To justify the issuance of
a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, it must be shown that: (1) the
complainant has a clear legal right; (2) such right has been violated and the
invasion by the other party is material and substantial; and (3) there is an
urgent and permanent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.39
An injunction will not issue to protect a right not in esse, or a right which is
merely contingent and may never arise since, to be protected by injunction,
the alleged right must be clearly founded on or granted by law or is
enforceable as a matter of law.
HEIRS OF MELENCIO YU and TALINANAP MATUALAGA vs COURT
OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 182371
September 4, 2013
It is settled that a writ of preliminary injunction should be issued only to
prevent grave and irreparable injury, that is, injury that is actual,
substantial, and demonstrable. Here, there is no "irreparable injury" as
understood in law. Rather, the damages alleged by the petitioner, namely,"
immense loss in profit and possible damage claims from clients" and the
cost of the billboard which is "a considerable amount of money" is easily
quantifiable, and certainly does not fall within the concept of irreparable
damage or injury as described in Social Security Commission v. Bayona:
Damages are irreparable within the meaning of the rule relative to the
issuance of injunction where there is no standard by which their amount
can be measured with reasonable accuracy . "An irreparable injury which a
court of equity will enjoin includes that degree of wrong of a repeated and
continuing kind which produce hurt, inconvenience, or damage that can be
estimated only by conjecture, and not by any accurate standard of
measurement." An irreparable injury to authorize an injunction consists of
a serious charge of, or is destructive to, the property it affects, either
physically or in the character in which it has been held and enjoined, or
when the property has some peculiar quality or use, so that its pecuniary
value will not fairly recompense the owner of the loss thereof. (Emphasis
supplied)
Here, any damage petitioner may suffer is easily subject to mathematical
computation and, if proven, is fully compensable by damages. Thus, a
preliminary injunction is not warranted. As previously held in Golding v.
Balatbat , the writ of injunction –
should never issue when an action for damages would adequately
compensate the injuries caused. The very foundation of the jurisdiction to
issue the writ rests in the probability of irreparable injury, the inadequacy
of pecuniary compensation, and the prevention of the multiplicity of suits,
and where facts are not shown to bring the case within these conditions,
the relief of injunction should be refused.56
Thus, in case of doubt, respondent CA should have denied private
respondents' prayer as it appeared that although they may be entitled to
the injunction, they could still be fully compensated for the damages they
may suffer by simply requiring petitioners to file a bond to answer for all
damages that may be suffered by such denial.57
