Preliminary Injunction Overview

1. Definition:
o It is an order granted at any stage of an action, before the judgment or final
order.
o Purpose: To require a party to either perform or refrain from performing a
particular act.
o Legal Basis: Rule 58, Rules of Court.
2. Types:
o Prohibitory: Stops a party from doing a particular act.
o Mandatory: Requires a party to perform a particular act.
3. When to Use:
o When a plaintiff's land is threatened to be unlawfully occupied by another, the
main action should include a prayer for a preliminary prohibitory injunction to
stop the defendant from occupying or performing dispossessing acts.
o If the land is already occupied, an action called forcible entry should be filed
along with a prayer for a preliminary mandatory injunction to restore
possession to the plaintiff.
4. Objective:
o To maintain the status quo or the prevailing state of affairs before the
controversy.
o Without it, a plaintiff could be deprived of possession before the case is resolved.
5. Nature:
o A provisional remedy that acts as an adjunct to a main suit.
o It prevents threatened harm, further injury, and irreparable harm until the
rights of the parties are settled in the main action.
o It is temporary and only remains in effect until the final disposition of the case.
6. Preserving Rights:
o The primary purpose is to preserve the status quo and protect the rights of the
plaintiff during the pendency of the case.
o Failure to grant it could result in irreparable harm, making the final judgment
ineffective.

Key Concepts of Preliminary Injunction (Continuation)

1. Status Quo:
o Defined as the last actual, peaceful, and uncontested status that preceded the
controversy.
o The trial court must not alter this status with its injunctive powers.
2. Status Quo Order:
o Issued to maintain the last uncontested state prior to the controversy.
o Unlike preliminary injunctions, a status quo order is more like a cease and desist
order and doesn’t direct specific actions.
o It is limited to preserving the last peaceful status, not directing the doing or
undoing of specific acts, as in mandatory or prohibitory injunctions.
3. Grant of a Preliminary Injunction:
 o A preliminary injunction is not a judgment on the merits.
o It is based on incomplete and initial evidence.
o The court grants the injunction based on the preliminary determination of the
status quo and the petitioner’s entitlement to the writ.
o The findings when issuing a writ of preliminary injunction are interlocutory,
meaning they are not final decisions on the case.
4. Discretion of the Court:
o Issuing a writ of preliminary injunction is subject to judicial discretion.
o The court evaluates the evidence and determines whether there is a factual basis
to grant the injunction.
o The appellate courts typically do not interfere with the trial court’s discretion
unless there is a manifest abuse of discretion.
5. Stage of Proceedings:
o Preliminary injunctions can be granted at any stage of proceedings, prior to the
judgment or final order, to prevent harm or preserve the status quo.

Injunctions: Key Points

1. Injunction as a Principal Action:

o Injunction itself is a principal action and a cause of action.
o It can be coupled with an application for a preliminary injunction, which is a
provisional remedy.
2. Preliminary vs. Permanent Injunction:
o A preliminary injunction is not permanent; it is intended to maintain the status
quo until the trial's final judgment.
o The main action seeks a permanent injunction, which is a final judgment issued
after the trial, permanently restraining or enjoining the defendant from continuing
an act or confirming a prior injunction.
3. Hearings and Evidence:
o The hearing for a writ of preliminary injunction is separate and distinct from the
trial on the merits of the main case.
o Evidence submitted for a preliminary injunction is initial and incomplete, and
the decision to grant the writ is based on this preliminary review.
4. Nature of a Preliminary Injunction:
o It is an interlocutory order, not a final judgment, meaning it is temporary and
can be modified or overturned.
o The court's decision to issue the injunction can be challenged through Rule 65, or
certiorari.
5. Main Acts Subject to Injunction (Article 26 of Civil Code):
o Prying into another’s privacy.
o Disturbing someone’s private life or family relations.
o Causing alienation from friends.
o Humiliating someone based on religious beliefs, social standing, or personal
conditions.
 6. Immediate Execution of Judgment:
o A judgment in an injunction case is immediately executory after its rendition and
is enforceable, even if an appeal is taken unless the trial court orders a stay of
execution.
o Stay of execution may be granted with terms like bonds to protect the rights of
the adverse party.

Distinguishing Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction from Petition for Prohibition:

1. Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction:

o Not an independent action; it is incidental to a principal action.
o Generally directed against a party litigant but may also be issued against a court,
agency, or person.
o It applies even if no issue of jurisdiction is involved. It restrains parties from
performing certain acts.
2. Petition for Prohibition:
o Independent action (a special civil action).
o Directed against tribunals, corporations, boards, or persons exercising judicial or
ministerial functions.
o Applies when there is an issue of jurisdiction, such as when actions are
performed without or in excess of jurisdiction, or there is grave abuse of
discretion.

Distinguishing Preliminary Mandatory Injunction from Petition for Mandamus:

1. Preliminary Mandatory Injunction:

o It is a provisional remedy, not an independent action (incidental to the main
action).
o Generally directed against a party litigant, but can also be directed against a
court or agency.
o Requires a party to perform an act to restore the last uncontested status before
the controversy.
2. Mandamus:
o Independent action (a special civil action).
o Commands a tribunal, corporation, or person to perform a duty that the law
specifically enjoins.
o Mandamus is directed against a failure to perform ministerial acts and seeks to
correct unlawful neglect of such duties.

Court that Issues the Writ of Preliminary Injunction:

1. Issuance by the Court:

o A preliminary injunction is issued by the court where the principal action is
pending (Municipal or Regional Trial Court).
 o If the principal action is pending in a higher court, such as the Court of Appeals
or the Supreme Court, then that court has jurisdiction to issue the writ.
o Examples:
▪ A party appealing a judgment from the Court of Appeals may file a
petition for review with the Supreme Court, including an application for
preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court would then have jurisdiction
to issue the writ.
▪ In cases of forcible entry or unlawful detainer, a motion can be filed
with the Regional Trial Court for a preliminary mandatory injunction to
restore possession.
2. Injunctions for Actions Incapable of Pecuniary Estimation:
o If the main action is injunction, the Regional Trial Court has exclusive original
jurisdiction, especially for cases where the subject matter is incapable of being
estimated monetarily.

Grounds for Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction (Rule 58, Section 3):

1. The writ may be issued when the following are established:

o Entitlement to relief: The applicant is entitled to the relief sought, and the relief
consists of restraining or requiring the performance of certain acts.
o The continuance or performance of the act during the litigation would likely
cause injustice to the applicant.
o A party, court, agency, or person is attempting to or threatening to violate the
rights of the applicant, which would make a future judgment ineffective.

Requisites for Issuance of Preliminary Injunction:

1. Existence of a clear right that needs protection.

2. Direct threat to that right by the act sought to be enjoined.
3. The invasion of that right is substantial.
4. There is an urgent need to prevent serious and irreparable damage.

Clear and Unmistakable Right:

1. Present Right Requirement:

o For a writ of preliminary injunction to issue, the right to be protected must be a
present, clear, and positive legal right.
o The applicant must demonstrate that they have an ostensible right to the final
relief prayed for in their complaint. If the right is doubtful or disputed, it does not
qualify as a clear legal right, and issuing an injunction would be considered an
abuse of discretion.
2. No Protection for Contingent or Future Rights:
o Injunctions are not designed to protect contingent or future rights. The applicant
must show proof of an actual existing right to be protected.
o Even if irreparable damage is possible, this alone is not a sufficient basis for
issuing an injunction without evidence of a clear, existing right.
 3. Expired Contracts Do Not Grant Rights for Injunction:
o In cases where the petitioner’s contract has expired, the court ruled that they no
longer have any legal rights to protect through an injunction.
o The court emphasized that an injunction is not meant to enforce rights that are
abstract, contingent, or based on a lapsed contract.
4. Substantial and Material Rights:
o For the court to issue an injunction, the right must be material and substantial—
not contingent or abstract. A clear and positive right that is enforceable must
exist.
o If there is no such right, injunctions cannot be granted to prevent acts that do not
give rise to a cause of action.

Key Court Rulings:

• Manila International Airport Authority v. Rivera Village Lessee Homeowners’

Association: Possibility of irreparable damage without proof of an existing right is not
grounds for an injunction.
• Thunder Security and Investigation Agency v. National Food Authority: The
petitioner cannot claim rights based on an expired service contract.

Formal Requisites for Issuance:

1. Verified Application:
o The application must be verified (Sec. 4[a], Rule 58, Rules of Court). If not
verified, the petition will be insufficient in form and substance.
2. Bond Requirement:
o The applicant must post a bond, unless exempted by the court (Sec. 4[b], Rule
58).
o The bond is meant to cover all damages sustained by the party enjoined, should
it later be determined that the applicant was not entitled to the injunction.
o The bond serves to protect the enjoined party against wrongful issuance of the
injunction.
3. Hearing Requirement:
o The court must conduct a hearing before issuing a writ of preliminary injunction.
No writ can be granted without prior notice and hearing to the party enjoined
(Sec. 5, Rule 58).
o A Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) can only be issued after a summary
hearing involving all parties.
4. Posting of a Bond:
o The applicant may be exempted from posting a bond at the court’s discretion.
o The opposing party may object to the sufficiency of the bond.
o If the bond is insufficient and not remedied, the writ may be dissolved.

Rule on Service of Summons:

1. Stage of Proceedings:
 o A writ of preliminary injunction may be granted at any stage of proceedings, but
before the final judgment (Sec. 1, Rule 58).
o A preliminary injunction or TRO can be requested through the initiatory pleading.
2. Multi-Sala Court Procedures:
o In multi-sala courts, the case must be raffled before the injunction is issued, after
notice is given to the party to be enjoined.
o Service of summons on the adverse party must accompany the complaint,
affidavit, and bond.
o If the summons cannot be served despite diligent efforts, service requirements
may be waived in certain cases (e.g., if the defendant is temporarily absent or
non-resident).

Notice and Hearing:

• A writ of preliminary injunction cannot be issued ex parte; there must be a prior notice
and hearing (Sec. 5, Rule 58, Rules of Court).

Temporary Restraining Order (TRO):

1. Purpose:
o A TRO is issued to preserve the status quo until a hearing on the application for
a writ of preliminary injunction can be conducted. It is a provisional remedy
within a provisional remedy meant to last for a limited period.
2. Bond Requirement:
o The applicant must file a bond, unless exempted by the court. The purpose of the
bond is to protect the enjoined party from damages if the court later finds that the
applicant was not entitled to the TRO or injunction.
3. Ex Parte TRO:
o The court may issue a TRO ex parte for a period not exceeding 20 days if
irreparable damage would result to the applicant before the hearing can occur.
4. 72-Hour TRO:
o In cases of extreme urgency, the executive judge of a multi-sala court or the
presiding judge of a single-sala court may issue an ex parte TRO effective for 72
hours from issuance. This is meant to prevent grave injustice and irreparable
injury.
o A summary hearing must be conducted within this 72-hour period to determine
whether the TRO can be extended to 20 days.
5. Expiration of the TRO:
o If no action is taken by the court before the 20-day period, the TRO expires by
operation of law.
6. Non-Extendibility:
o The 20-day period of the TRO is non-extendible if issued by a Regional Trial
Court. Failure of the trial court to fix a period in the TRO does not automatically
convert it into a preliminary injunction.
7. Improper Hearing:
 o It is improper for a judge to order a hearing on the issuance of a TRO if the TRO
was not prayed for in the complaint.

Non-Extendibility of a TRO:

1. General Rule:
o According to Section 5 (3rd paragraph), once the application for a preliminary
injunction is denied or unresolved within the TRO's period, the TRO is deemed
automatically vacated.
o The effectivity of a TRO is non-extendible, meaning no court can extend or
renew the TRO on the same grounds on which it was originally issued.
2. When Extension is Possible:
o While the rule against non-extendibility applies to the same grounds, courts may
extend or renew a TRO if new or additional grounds arise during its effectivity.
However, such extension is still subject to the time limits imposed by the rules.

Duration of a TRO:

1. 20-Day Period:
o A TRO issued ex parte can be effective for a period not exceeding 20 days from
the service of summons to the party to be enjoined.
o If the application for a preliminary injunction is not resolved within this 20-day
period, the TRO expires automatically.
2. 72-Hour TRO:
o In urgent cases involving grave injustice or irreparable injury, a judge can
issue a 72-hour TRO. After this, a summary hearing must determine whether to
extend it up to the full 20 days.
3. TRO Issued by Higher Courts:
o A TRO from the Court of Appeals is effective for 60 days from the service to the
enjoined party and is non-extendible beyond that period.
o A TRO from the Supreme Court remains effective until further orders from the
court.

Key Jurisprudence:

• Court of Appeals TRO: Cannot exceed the 60-day limit, and any second TRO issued
after the expiration of this period is considered a patent nullity.
• Supreme Court TRO: No fixed duration, as it remains in force until further orders.

Cases Justifying Preliminary Injunction:

1. Petition for Certiorari:

o A preliminary injunction may be issued when a petition for certiorari under Rule
65 is filed. The filing of such a petition does not interrupt the principal case unless
a temporary restraining order (TRO) or a writ of preliminary injunction is issued
by a higher court.
 o Illustration: A defendant filed a petition for certiorari alleging an abuse of
discretion by the Metropolitan Trial Court. During this period, the plaintiff files a
motion for default against the defendant for failing to answer the complaint. The
defendant should have obtained a TRO or injunction to prevent the continuation
of the case.
2. Petition for Relief:
o A petition for relief under Rule 38 may also justify a writ of preliminary
injunction. The petition is typically filed after a judgment has become final and
executory. To prevent the execution of the judgment, a writ of preliminary
injunction should be applied for while the petition is pending.
o Bar 2002: To stay the execution of the judgment, the petitioner must seek an
injunction in the court where the petition for relief is filed.
3. Annulment of Judgment:
o A writ of preliminary injunction may be availed of when an action to annul a
judgment is filed under Rule 47, primarily to prevent the execution of the
judgment.
4. Forcible Entry or Unlawful Detainer:
o In cases of forcible entry or unlawful detainer, a preliminary mandatory
injunction may be issued to restore the plaintiff’s possession of the property.
o Section 15, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides that a person deprived of
possession through forcible entry or unlawful detainer may, within five days
from the filing of the complaint, file a motion for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction to restore possession.

Cases Where Injunction Will Not Be Issued:

1. Environmental Cases:
o No court, except the Supreme Court, can issue a TRO or preliminary injunction
against lawful actions of government agencies that enforce environmental laws
(Sec. 10, Rule 2, Part II, A.M. 09-6-8-SC).
2. Labor Disputes:
o No injunction or restraining order will be issued by any court in cases growing
out of labor disputes, except as provided under specific articles of the Labor
Code. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) has exclusive authority
over labor disputes (San Miguel Corp. v. NLRC).
3. Permits and Licenses:
o Courts are prohibited from issuing injunctions in cases involving concessions,
licenses, and permits issued by public officials for natural resource exploitation
(P.D. 605).
4. Government Infrastructure Projects:
o Temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, or mandatory injunctions
cannot be issued against government infrastructure projects (P.D. 1818).
5. CARP and Agrarian Reform:
o No court may issue a restraining order or injunction against the Presidential
Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) or its authorized agencies in cases involving
agrarian reform (CARP) (Sec. 55, R.A. 6657).
6. Privatization Trust:
o Injunctions cannot be issued against the Asset Privatization Trust or its
proceedings (Sec. 31-A, Proclamation 50-A).
7. Court Interference:
o Courts cannot issue injunctions against the judgments or decrees of other courts of
equal or coordinate jurisdiction (Ching v. Court of Appeals).
8. Quasi-Judicial Bodies:
o The Regional Trial Court cannot issue injunctions against quasi-judicial bodies
such as the Social Security Commission and Securities and Exchange
Commission (Philippine Pacific Fishing Co. v. Luna).
9. Tax Collection:
o No court can issue an injunction to restrain the collection of taxes, except in cases
of irreparable injury (R.A. 8424, Tax Reform Act).
10. Customs and Importations:

• Courts are prohibited from issuing orders to restrain imported articles impounded by the
Bureau of Customs (Zuñio v. Cabredo).

11. Consummated Acts:

• Injunctions cannot be issued against consummated acts (PNB v. Adi).

12. Property in Dispute:

• An injunction cannot be issued to transfer possession or control of property where the

legal title is in dispute (Almeida v. Court of Appeals).

13. Injunction for Establishing New Relations:

• Injunctions cannot be issued to establish new relations between the parties (Almeida v.
Court of Appeals).

14. Lack of Clear Legal Right:

• Injunctions cannot be issued when the applicant’s right is doubtful or disputed, as doing
so constitutes grave abuse of discretion (Cortez-Estrada v. Heirs of Samul).

15. Injunctions to Restrain Criminal Prosecution:

• Generally, injunctions do not lie to restrain criminal prosecution, except in extreme

cases, such as when necessary to protect constitutional rights (Andres v. Cuevas).

16. Money Laundering Cases:

 • No court, except the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, can issue a TRO or
injunction against freeze orders issued by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC)
(R.A. 9160, as amended).

17. Foreclosure of Mortgage:

• No TRO or injunction shall be issued against the extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage,

unless the debtor pays the required interest (A.M. 99-10-05-0).

18. Bangko Sentral Supervision:

• No restraining order or injunction shall be issued to prevent Bangko Sentral from

examining institutions under its supervision unless arbitrary action is proven (R.A. 7653).

Modification of the Injunction:

• The extent of a preliminary injunction or restraining order can be modified if it is

determined to be too broad. The court has the discretion to make adjustments as
necessary (Sec. 6, Rule 58, Rules of Court).

Effect of Filing a Counterbond:

• Filing a counterbond does not automatically result in the dissolution of a preliminary

injunction. The court may dissolve the injunction if it finds that:
o The plaintiff is entitled to the injunction, but the continuance thereof would cause
greater harm to the defendant.
o The defendant files a bond that sufficiently compensates the plaintiff for any
damages caused by the dissolution of the injunction.

Grounds for Dissolution:

• An injunction may be dissolved after a hearing if it is found that:

o The damages suffered by the defendant would be greater than the damages to be
suffered by the plaintiff by dissolving the injunction.
o If the plaintiff can be fully compensated for such damages, the court may require
the defendant to file a bond to cover those damages (Sec. 6, Rule 58).

Grave Abuse of Discretion:

• Grave abuse of discretion is a ground for nullifying an injunction. This occurs when
there is a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment or when the court evades
performing its legal duties (Sps. Castro v. Sps. De la Cruz).

Duty of the Court:

 • According to a 2007 provision, a court that issues a writ of preliminary injunction must
resolve the main case or petition within six months from the issuance of the writ. This
applies to the trial court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, and Court of Tax Appeals
(A.M. 07-7-12-SC, effective Dec. 27, 2007).

Grant of Final Injunction:

• A final injunction is issued by the court after trial, permanently restraining the enjoined
party from performing the acts subject to the injunction.
• The court may also confirm a preliminary injunction if it determines that the applicant
is entitled to permanent relief. Once granted, the injunction is no longer preliminary
(Sec. 9, Rule 58).