PROVISIONAL REMEDIES

Rule 58

Preliminary Injunction
WHEN may an injunction be availed?
1. At any stage of an action or proceeding
2. Prior to the judgment or final order
A. Essential Requisites for a Preliminary Injunction
1. The invasion of right sought to be protected is material and
substantial
2. The right of the complainant is clear and unmistakable
3. There is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent
serious damage
- While a clear showing of the right is necessary, its existence need not be
conclusively established. Hence, to be entitled to the writ, it is sufficient that the
complaint shows that he has an ostensible right to the final relief prayed for.
o Ostensible = Appearing to be true, but not necessarily true
WHAT are the Grounds for the issuance of the preliminary injunction?
a. That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part
of such relief consists in
i. Restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts
complained of, or
ii. Requiring the performance of the 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
i. Would probably work injustice to the applicant
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
i. Some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the applicant
respecting the subject of the action or proceeding and
ii. Tending to render the judgment ineffectual
WHO is an injunction against?
1.
2.
3.
4.

Party
Court
Agency
Person

WHAT is an injunction for?

An order to
a. Refrain from particular act or acts (Preliminary Injunction / Preliminary Prohibitory
Injunction)
a. The proclamation having been consummated prior to the filing of the
petition for preliminary injunction, renders the petition moot. A preliminary
injunction is an order to refrain or to stop a particular act or acts, the act
having already been done, an injunction is no longer proper (National
Artist v. Executive Secretary)
b. An preliminary injunction is issued to preserve the status quo, in a case
where an injunction is issued to allow petitioner and his household to
access the property of another, the allowance of heavy equipment and

construction materials is not allowed as this would be in violation of the

status quo preserved by the injunction (Preysler v. CA)
i.
Status Quo = The Last Actual, Peaceable and Uncontested
Situation
b. Require performance of particular act or acts (Preliminary Mandatory Injunction)
a. An petition for preliminary mandatory injunction to compel the office of the
president to accommodate petitioners action against a foreign country
and the action itself being denied by the court, the petition must likewise
be denied, for being merely a provisional remedy that is adjunct to the
main case and is subject to the latters outcome. The main case being
already denied by the court, the issuance of the injunction is likewise
denied (Vinuya v. Romulo)
b. The action of petitioner to enforce his constitutional right to due process by
enjoining through an injunction the unilateral acts of the adverse party in
rescinding their contract is an action for injunction distinct from the
provisional remedy of injunction which is not incidental of an independent
action or proceeding (Sangguniang Lungsod v. Jadewell)
c. An action to recover possession of property may also be filed with a
preliminary mandatory injunction under Article 539 of the New Civil Code
(Semirara Coal v. HGL)
d. A preliminary mandatory injunction ordering a party to destroy a wall
covering entry of the applicant to his property is not proper when there is
the existence of an alternative road applicant may use, there being no
clear and unmistakable right to the passage the writ cannot be issued
(China Banking Corporation v. Co.)
WHO may grant preliminary injunction?
A. The Court where the action or proceeding is pending
a. IF the action or proceeding is pending in the CA or SC it may be issued by
i. The Court
1. An action to enjoin the foreclosure proceedings is distinct
from the dissolution order issued by the SEC and may be
granted by the RTC, the same being one seeking to enjoin
the foreclosure proceedings rather than a claim on the
dissolution proceedings (BPI v. Hong)
2. The action to recover land which was held temporarily by the
decedents appointed administrator is not so urgent a cause
to justify an immediate preliminary injunction. A writ of
preliminary injunction may only be issued when no other
remedy is available (Devesa v. Arbes)
ii. Any member thereof
WHEN may the preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order be granted?
A. The Application
a. In the action or proceeding is verified, and
b. Shows facts entitling the applicant to the relief demanded, and
c. Files with the court where the action or proceeding is pending
i. An amount to be fixed by the Court
1. Exemption: When the court does not require the filing of a
bond
ii. Effect of the bond to pay to such party or person all damages which
he may sustain by reason of the injunction or temporary restraining
order

1. Such may only be effected should the court finally decide

that the applicant was not entitled to the injunction
2. The Preliminary Injunction is granted after the approval of
the Requisite Bond
B. When the application is included in a complaint or any initiatory pleading
a. If filed in a multiple-sala court
i. Shall be raffled only after notice to and in the presence of the
adverse party or the person to be enjoined
1. Such notice shall be preceded or contemporaneously
accompanied by:
a. Service of Summons
b. Copy of the Complaint or Initiatory Pleading
c. Applicants Affidavit or Bond
2. Such documents to be served upon the adverse party in the
Philippines
a. Exception:
i. If summons could not be served personally or
by substituted service despite diligent efforts,
ii. The adverse party is a resident of the
Philippines temporarily absent therefrom,
iii. The adverse party is a non-resident thereof
C. The application for a temporary restraining order shall thereafter be acted upon
only after
a. All parties are heard in a summary hearing
b. Such summary hearing shall be conducted within twenty-four hours after
the sheriffs return of the service and/or
c. The records are received by the branch selected by raffle and to which the
records shall be transmitted immediately
WHEN is a preliminary injunction not granted?
-

When there is no hearing or prior notice to the party or persons sought to be

enjoined
o Exception:
When it shall appear from facts shown by affidavits or by the
verified application that
Great and Irreparable Injury (G.I)
o Would result to the applicant before the matter can be
heard on notice
In such a case as the exception mentioned above, 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 days from the service
of the party or person sought to be enjoined,
Within the said twenty-day period, the court must order said party or person to
show cause,
o At a specified time and place
o Why the injunction should not be granted
o The Court shall determine within the same period whether or not the
preliminary injunction shall be granted, and accordingly issue the
corresponding order
However, and 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,
o The executive judge of a multiple-sala court or
o 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 he 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.
o In the event that the application for preliminary injunction is denied or not
resolved within the said period, the temporary restraining order is
deemed, automatically vacated.
o The effectivity of a temporary restraining order is not extendible without
need of any judicial declaration to that effect and no court shall have
authority to extend or renew the same on the same ground for which it
was issued.
Exception: If issued by the Court of Appeals or a member thereof,
the temporary restraining order shall be effective for sixty (60) days
from service on the party or person sought to be enjoined. A
restraining, order issued by the Supreme Court or a member
thereof shall be effective until further orders.

WHAT are the grounds for objection to, or for motion of dissolution of injunction
or temporary restraining order?
-

The application for injunction or restraining order may be denied,

o Upon a showing of its insufficiency.
The injunction or restraining order may also be denied, or, if granted, may be
dissolved,
o On other grounds upon affidavits of the party or person enjoined, which
may be opposed by the applicant also by affidavits.
o It may further be denied, or if granted, may be dissolved,
If it appears after hearing that although the applicant is entitled to
the injunction or restraining order,
The issuance or continuance thereof, as the case may be, would
cause irreparable damage to the party or person enjoined
While the applicant can be fully compensated for such damages as
he may suffer, and
The former files a bond in an amount fixed by the court conditioned
that he will pay all damages which the applicant may suffer by the
denial or the dissolution of the injunction or restraining order.
If it appears that the extent of the preliminary injunction or
restraining order granted is too great, it may be modified.

Effects of Service of Copies of Bonds

-

The party filing a bond in accordance with the provisions of this Rule shall
forthwith serve a copy of such bond on the other party, who may except to the
sufficiency of the bond, or of the surety or sureties thereon.

If the applicant's bond is found to be insufficient in amount, or if the surety or

sureties thereon fail to justify, and a bond sufficient in amount with sufficient
sureties approved after justification is not filed forthwith
o The injunction shall be dissolved.
If the bond of the adverse party is found to be insufficient in amount, or the surety
or sureties thereon fail to justify a bond sufficient in amount with sufficient
sureties approved after justification is not filed forthwith,
o The injunction shall be granted or restored, as the case may be.

Judgment to include damages against party and sureties

At the trial, the amount of damages to be awarded to either party, upon the bond of the
adverse party, shall be claimed, ascertained, and awarded under the same procedure
prescribed in Section 20 of Rule 57.
Final Injunction - If after the trial of the action it appears that the applicant is entitled to
have the act or acts complained of permanently enjoined the court shall grant a final
injunction perpetually restraining the party or person enjoined from the commission or
continuance of the act or acts of confirming the preliminary mandatory injunction.
Other Effects and Rulings Concerning Preliminary Injunction
(I wasnt sure which sections of the law to put these in, so just read through
them)
1. In a case where the writ of preliminary injunction was not granted by the trial court
and pending review of the conduct of the court, the court also rules on the main
case and denies the complaint, the petitioner for a writ of preliminary injunction is
likewise dismissed. A writ of preliminary injunction being a provisional remedy it is a
temporary measure availed of during the pendency of the action is a mere incident
and dependent of the result of the main case (Arevalo v. Planters Development
Bank)
2. A writ of preliminary injunction is no longer proper when the writ sought to enjoin the
board from removing the applicant for his position until the lapse of the 5 years term
but such 5 years had already passed while the case was pending in court. The
continuance of the hearings become moot and academic and the writ of preliminary
injunction is deemed lifted unless made permanent by the court (Barayuga v.
Adventist University)
3. For a party to be entitled to a writ of preliminary injunction a clear and unmistakable
right and an urgent and paramount necessity to prevent serious damage must exist,
in a case where judgment was rendered in favor of the adverse party but the
adverse party did not file for execution pending the final decision of the court, there
is no clear immediate or urgent necessity to issue a writ (Australian Professional
Realty v. Municipality of Padre Garcia Batangas)
4. The applicant who claims that the interests on the loan were wrong and insisting on
a different amount for the interests and having failed to deposit such amount with
the court would still be held in default and can therefore not avail of the remedy of
injunction against the foreclosure proceedings, there being no unmistakable right
(De Los Santos v. MTBC)
5. An applicant who argues a different due date of a loan agreement but fails to pay
despite the lapse of the argued date is still held in default and cannot avail of the
remedy of injunction (TML Gasket v. BPI Family)
6. A preliminary injunction is an order to refrain from doing or continuing an act, in a
case where the water flow was already blocked prior to the filing for the writ, the
issuance of the writ is only to stop any further blocking of the water flow. Therefore,

the adverse parties inaction to remove the blockage was not an act in contempt of
court (Mantile v. Cajucom)
7. Notice to parties is as important as hearing as no hearing can be meaningful
without both parties knowledge about it (Republic v. Caguia)
8. A writ of preliminary injunction can must only be granted in the face of actual and
existing substantial rights. It must be shown that the violation of the right would
cause irreparable injury (Solid Builders v. China Banking) (PNB v. RJ Ventures)
9. Same as Solid Builders, however note :: Damage is considered irreparable when
there is no standard by which the amount can be measures with reasonable
accuracy (Ermita v. Aldecoa Delorino)
10. Irreparable injury, same as above - However note: "A writ of injunction cannot be
used to oust one party of its possession of a property and give it to another" (Heirs
of Yu v. CA)
11. An injunction should only be issued for a right that is in esse or exists in fact (UPCB
v. Lumbo)
12. An injunction is issued to preserve the status quo, Status quo Is the last peacable
and uncontested situation which precedes the controvery. The Status quo should be
existing at the time of filing (Overseas Worker Welfare v. Chavez)(Dungog v. CA)
13. The Labor Arbiter has no power to issue injunctions, only the NLRC can do that
(Lahm v. Mayor)
14. The possibility of unconstitutional of a statute does not ipso facto count as a ground
to issue injunction. For the injunction to issue, bad faith, harassment and unusual
circumstances have to be shown to warrant the injunction (Executive Secretary v.
CA) (Garcia v. Drilon)
15. A stranger and not a party to the case cannot have injunction issued in his favor
(Mabayo Farm v. CA)
16. You cannot enjoin the Senate from performing their job to legislate, the subpoena
issued to Flaviano was done in accordance with their power to conduct inquires in
aid of legislation and following the equality principle of the three branches of
government, the Supreme Court cannot enjoin the Senate in exercising a
constitutionally granted authority (Senate Blue Ribbon Committee v. Majudocon)
17. You cannot enjoin the collection of taxes (Southern Cross v. The Philippine
Cement)
18. You cannot enjoin the NLRC from executing a judgment in the exercise of their
jurisdiction over labor disputes (Delta Ventures v. Cabato)
19. You cannot enjoin the monetary board of the BSP from performing its examination
powers unless grave abuse of discretion is found (Bangko Sentral Monetary Board
v. Valenzuela)
20. A judge of a concurrent or co-equal court cannot enjoin the act of the other judge
(Traders Royal Bank v. IAC) (Heirs of Yadno v. Heirs of Anchilles)
21. There can be no injunction for an event that already happened (RCBC v. BDO)
22. Even if there is grounds to merit the issuance of an Injunction but the court had no
jurisdiction over the case, the decision to grant injunction would not matter (City of
Lapu-Lapu v. Peza)
23. Government Infrastructures cannot be enjoined (Hermano Oil v. Toll Regulatory
Board) (Nerwin v. PNOC) (Baguio Greening Movement v. Masweng)
24. Injunction is not an order to transfer possession of a property (Medina v. Canoy)
25. R.A 8975 does indeed enjoin everyone except the SC from issuing an injunction
against a government infrastructure project however it is not an automatic ground
for dismissal if the case is for injunction the courts may look into the matter
(Republic v. Nolasco)
26. While it is true that one cannot enjoin a government infrastructure project, this only
applies to the technical and discretionary aspects of the infrastructure project.
When the question and issues are clearly outside the dimension, involving

questions of law, the court cannot be prevented from using their power to restrain
and prohibit said act (Hernandez v. Napocor)
27. While courts cannot issue injunction against government infrastructure projects the
NCIP or the agency concerned with indigenous people may issue an injunction
against the government infrastructure project because it is not a court (Baguio
Greening Movement v. Masweng)
28. Injunction is sufficient if it is shown that there is a right and that the action if not
enjoined would violate that right, there does not need to be conclusive proof that the
violation will occur. An applicant need only show that he has a right to the relief
sought (Republic v. Evangelista)
29. All that is needed to allow a preliminary injunction is a sampling of evidence (Land
Bank v. Continental Watchman)
30. The dissolution of the writ of injunction is different from its issuance, a judge who
issued a writ may have it dissolved if the other party can show grounds as stated in
Sec. 6 of Rule 58 (Sps. Yap v. International Exchange Bank)
31. The Prohibition of courts in issuing an injunction against government projects will
not apply if the issue involved is of extreme urgency involving a constitutional issue
such that the failure to issue an injunction will result in grave irreparable injury (R.A
8975)