Anda di halaman 1dari 15

RULE 58

Preliminary Injunction
Section 1.Preliminary injunction defined; classes. 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. (1a)
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: an order granted at any stage of an action, prior to
the judgment or final order, requiring a party, court or agency or person to
perform or refrain from performing a particular act or acts.
a) Temporary
b) Subject to the final disposition of the principal action.
c) Dependent upon the result of the main action
PURPOSE: To preserve the status quo of the matter subject of the action and
to protect the rights of the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit.
Violation = ineffectual judgement
Raymundo vs CA:
It is provisional because it constitutes a temporary measure availed of during
the pendency of the main action and it is ancillary because it is a mere incident
in and is dependent upon the result of the main action.
An injunctive writ is not a judgment on the merits of the case. A writ of
preliminary injunction is generally based solely on initial and incomplete
evidence. the evidence submitted during the hearing on an application for a
writ of preliminary injunction is not conclusive or complete, for only a
sampling is needed to give the trial court an idea of the justification for the
preliminary injunction pending the decision of the case on the merits.
The findings of fact and opinion of a court when issuing the writ of preliminary
injunction are interlocutory in nature and made before the trial on the merits
is commenced or terminated. There may be vital facts to be presented at trial
which may not be obtained or presented during the hearing on the application
for the injunctive writ.
The exercise of judicial discretion by a court in injunctive matters must not be
interfered with except when there is grave abuse discretion. Grave abuse of
discretion in the issuance of writs of preliminary injunction implies a
capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment that is equivalent to
lack of jurisdiction, or where the power is exercise in an arbitrary or despotic
manner by reason of passion, prejudice or personal aversion amounting to an
evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or
to act at all in contemplation of law.

Objective: To preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be
heard fully.
It is resorted to by a litigant to protect or preserve his rights or interests and for
no other purpose during the pendency of the principal action.
Status quo - as the last actual, peaceful, and uncontested statues that
precedes the actual controversy, that which is existing at the time of the filing
of the case.
A preliminary injunction is directed against a:
a) party
b) court
c) agency, or
d) person
Kinds:
A) prohibitory injunction - which commands one to refrain from doing a
particular act.
B) mandatory injunction - which commands the performance of some
positive act to correct a wrong in the past.
Distinguish:
PROHIBITORY

MANDATORY

When it requires one to refrain from


a particular act or acts

When it requires the performance of


a particular act or acts. it commands
the performance of some positive act
to correct a wrong in the past.

The act has not yet been


performed because it is restrained or
prevented by the injunction. its
purpose is to prevent a future or
threatened injury. the status quo is
preserved. Consummated acts cannot
be enjoined.

The act has already been


performed and this act has violated
the rights of another. since the act
has already been performed, the
purpose of the injunction is to
restore the status quo and then
preserve the said status quo
which has been restored. this
status quo refers to the last peaceable
and uncontested status prior to the
controversy.

( Example: under sec 15 of rule 70, the rightful possessor of real property
deprived of his possession by force, intimidation, stealth, threats, or strategy,

may within 5 days from the filing of a complaint for forcible entry, present a
motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to restore
him in his possession )
Main action for injunction vs prelim injunction:
MAIN ACTION

independent action

Seeks a judgment embodying a final


injunction. it is final when it is issued
as a judgment making the injunction
permanent. it perpetually restrains a
persons from the commission or
continuance of an act or confirms the
previous preliminary mandatory
injunction.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

not a principal action and can only


exist as an incident to a principal
action. It is not a cause of action in
itself but merely an adjunct to a main
suit.must exist with a main action
Seeks to preserve the status quo
until the merits can be heard. it is
designated to require a party or a
court, agency or a person to refrain
from a particular act or acts during
the pendency of the principal case.

A judgement for a permanent


Not a final resolution or decision
injunction suit should be assailed by a disposing of the case. the findings of
timely appeal.
fact and opinion of a court when
issuing the writ of preliminary
injunction are interlocutory in
nature.

Order granting prelim injunction may be challenged by a petition for certiorari


under rule 65 and not by ordinary appeal pursuant to rule 41 sec 1(b). In re
G.R. No. 136114. January 22, 2004, (study thoroughly)
Hearing on the application for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is
separate and distinct from the trial on the merits of the main case for
injunction.
Art 26 of the Civil code are examples of acts which may be enjoined through
the main action of injunction.
A judgment in an action for injunction is immediately executory, i.e., it is
enforceable after its rendition and shall not be stayed by an appeal taken
therefrom, unless otherwise ordered by the trial court.
in re: rule 39 sec 4
Section 4. Judgments not stayed by appeal. Judgments in actions for injunction, receivership, accounting and
support, and such other judgments as are now or may hereafter be declared to be immediately executory, shall be
enforceable after their rendition and shall not, be stayed by an appeal taken therefrom, unless otherwise ordered by

the trial court. On appeal therefrom, the appellate court in its discretion may make an order suspending, modifying,
restoring or granting the injunction, receivership, accounting, or award of support.
The stay of execution shall be upon such terms as to bond or otherwise as may be considered proper for the security or
protection of the rights of the adverse party. (4a)

Injunction vs petition for declaratory relief:


INJUNCTION

PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

ordinary civil action

special civil action governed by rule


63 of ROC

seeks to enjoin or compel a party


to perform certain acts.

seeks a declaration of rights or


duties, or determination of any
question or validity arising under a
statute, executive order or regulation,
ordinance or any other governmental
regulations, or under a deed, will,
contract or other written instrument,
under which his rights are affected,
and before breach or violation

PRELIMINARY PROHIBITORY INJUNCTION

PETITION FOR PROHIBITION

not an independent action

special civil action and an


independent action

one that is generally directed against


a party litigant, although under the
rules, it may be also be directed
against a court, an agency or person.

a special civil action is not directed


against a party litigant but against a
tribunal, corporation, board, officer
or person exercising judicial, quasijudicial or ministerial functions.

applies even if there is no issue of


jurisdiction, grave abuse of
discretion, or other similar acts
which amount to lack of
jurisdiction. basis is the need to
protect an existing and clear legal
right that faces a threatened
violation by a party, court, agency or
person.

applies when the acts or proceedings


of any tribunal, corporation, board,
officer or person are without or in
excess of its or his jurisdiction.
hence, the basis of prohibition is a
jurisdictional issue.

PRELIMINARY MANDATORY INJUNCTON vs PETITION FOR MANDAMUS


PRELIMINARY MANDATORY INJUNCTON

PETITION FOR MANDAMUS

provisional remedy not a main or


independent action

special civil action and a main action

generally directed against a party


litigant although, under the rules, it
may also be issued against a court,
agency or person.

directed against a tribunal, board,


officer or person

issued to require a party to perform


an act in order to restore the last
peaceable and uncontested status
preceding the controversy.

one which seeks a judgment


commanding a tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person
to perform a duty which the law
specifically enjoins as a duty either
because there was an unlawful
neglect of such duty or a person was
unlawful excluded forms h use and
enjoyment of an office to which such
person is entitled.

Section 2. Who may grant preliminary injunction. A preliminary


injunction may be granted by the court where the action or
proceeding is pending. If the action or proceeding is pending in the
Court of Appeals or in the Supreme Court, it may be issued by said
court or any member thereof. (2a)
Prelim injunction is to be issued by the court where the principal action is
pending. The term court includes a municipal or a metropolitan trial court.
Where the principal action is pending in the MTC, then it is the RTC which shall
issue the writ of preliminary injunction. Where the principal action is pending in
the RTC, then, it is this court which shall issue the writ of preliminary injunction.
If the main action is for injunction, the Municipal trial court cannot
grant the preliminary injunction. This is because an action for injunction is
one incapable of pecuniary estimation. BP129 Sec19{1}, RTC shall exercise
exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions in which the subject matter of
the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
The basic issue in an action incapable of pecuniary estimation is one other than
the recovery of money. An injunction is not instituted primarily to recover
money and, thus, properly meets the definition of an action incapable of
pecuniary estimation.
If the principal action or proceeding is pending in the CA, the application for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction must be made with the CA and the
writ shall be issued by said court or any of its members. if it is pending in the
SC, then the application must be made with that court or any member thereof.
Section 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. (3a)
Section 4. Verified application and bond for preliminary injunction or
temporary restraining order. A preliminary injunction or temporary
restraining order may be granted only when:
(a) The application in the action or proceeding is verified, and shows
facts entitling the applicant to the relief demanded; and
(b) Unless exempted by the court the applicant files with the court
where the action or proceeding is pending, a bond executed to the
party or person enjoined, in an amount to be fixed by the court, to the
effect that the applicant will pay to such party or person all damages
which he may sustain by reason of the injunction or temporary
restraining order if the court should finally decide that the applicant
was not entitled thereto. Upon approval of the requisite bond, a writ
of preliminary injunction shall be issued. (4a)
(c) When an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or a
temporary restraining order is included in a complaint or any
initiatory pleading, the case, if filed in a multiple-sala court, shall be
raffled only after notice to and in the presence of the adverse party or
the person to be enjoined. In any event, such notice shall be
preceded, or contemporaneously accompanied, by service of
summons, together with a copy of the complaint or initiatory pleading
and the applicant's affidavit and bond, upon the adverse party in the
Philippines.
However, where the summons could not be served personally or by
substituted service despite diligent efforts, or the adverse party is a
resident of the Philippines temporarily absent therefrom or is a
nonresident thereof, the requirement of prior or contemporaneous
service of summons shall not apply.
(d) The application for a temporary restraining order shall thereafter
be acted upon only after all parties are heard in a summary hearing

which shall be conducted within twenty-four (24) hours after the


sheriff's return of service and/or the records are received by the
branch selected by raffle and to which the records shall be
transmitted immediately.
The injunctive writ is issued when there is a clear and unmistakable right
proven by the party seeking it.
A clear legal right means one clearly founded in or granted by law or is
enforceable as a matter of law.
In other words, for the writ to issue, the right sought to be protected must be a
present right, a legal right which must be shown to be clear and positive.
Accordingly, this means that the applicants praying for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction must show that they have an ostensible right to the
final relief prayed for in their complaint
Requisites:
1) the existence of a right to be protected;
2) acts which are violative of said right.
In the absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of the injunctive relief
constitutes grave abuse of discretion. Injunction is not designed to protect
contingent or future rights. where the complainants right is doubtful or
disputed, injunction is not proper.
Improper issuance of injunction constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
Court added: for an injunctive writ to issue, a clear showing of extreme urgency
to prevent irreparable injury and a clear and unmistakable right to it must
be proven by the party seeking it.
in re contract: the petitioner, who no longer has legal rights under a contract
that has expired, cannot prevent the respondent from entering into a contract
with another through a writ of injunction because a contract is entered into,
renewed or revived by mutual consent. By preventing the respondent from
negotiating a contract with another, the RTC, in effect extended the life of the
expired contract.
there must exist an actual right.
Quantum of evidence:
the plaintiffs are only required to show that they have an ostensible right to
the final relief prayed for in their complaint. A writ of preliminary injunction is
generally based solely on initial or incomplete evidence. such evidence seen
only be a sampling intended merely to give the court an evidence of
justification for prelim injunction pending the decision on the merits of the case
and is not conclusive of the principal action which has yet to be decided.

the holding of a hearing, where both parties can introduce evidence and
present their side, is also required before the courts ay issue an injunctive
writ.
mere prima facie evidence is needed to establish the applicants right or
interest in the subject matter of the main action because the applicant is
required to show only that he has an ostensible right to the final relief prayed
for in his complaint. sampling to give the trial court an idea of the
justification for the preliminary injunction pending the decision of the case on
the merits.
ROC allows the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction based on a
verified application, for as long as there is notice and hearing.
[ the facts disclosed that a summary hearing was actually conducted.
accordingly, although the general rule is that a sampling of evidence is
required to be submitted during the hearing on the motion for preliminary
injunction, there are also instances when the writ of preliminary injunction can
be issued based on the verified application, provided there is notice and
hearing. a judge is given a wide latitude or discretion in issuing the writ of
preliminary injunction after the hearing, especially when a clear and
unmistakable right to the issuance of the injunctive writ can be gleaned from
affidavits or the verified application and its supporting documents, considering
the peculiar circumstances of this case as when there are no factual issues
involved and the issued raised are purely legal in nature. ]
Requisites for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction or a temporary
restraining order:
a) there must be a verified application. Absence of a verification makes an
application or petition or preliminary injunction patently insufficient both in
form and substance.
b) the applicant must establish i) the existence of a clear and unmistakable
right that must be protected; ii) an urgent and paramount necessity for the
writ to prevent serious damage.
c) the applicant must post a bond, unless exempted by the court. this bond,
which shall be in an amount to be fixed by the court, is executed in favor of the
party enjoined all damages which he may sustain by reason of the preliminary
injunction or the restraining order if the court should finally decide that the
applicant was not entitled to the writ or order.
d) as to writ of preliminary injunction, the court must conduct a hearing. a writ
of preliminary injunction cannot be issued without a prior notice and hearing.
under the rules, no preliminary injunction shall be granted without hearing
and prior notice to the party or persons sought to be enjoined
the application for a temporary restraining order shall thereafter be acted upon
only after all parties are heard in a summary hearing which shall be

conducted within 24 hrs after the sheriffs return of service and/or the records
are received by the branch selected by raffle and to which the records shall b e
transmitted immediately.
Note:
Preliminary Injunction needs notice and hearing. (Absolute)
TRO (Can be issued ex parte)
Section 5. Preliminary injunction not granted without notice; exception. No preliminary injunction shall be granted
without hearing and prior notice to the party or person 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 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 said 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, determine within the same period
whether or not the preliminary injunction shall be granted, and accordingly issue the corresponding order. (Bar Matter
No. 803, 17 February 1998)
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, 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 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.
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. 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.
However, 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. (5a)

Bond: court may order for the posting of a bond to protect the defendant
against loss or damage by reason of the injunction in case the court finally
decides that the plaintiff was not entitled to it, and the bond is usually
conditioned accordingly. (can be exempted)
a) Bond of applicant is insufficient in amount, and a bond sufficient in amount
with sufficient sureties is not filed, injunction shall be dissolved.
b) Bond of the adverse party is found to be insufficient in amount, and a bond
sufficient in amount is not filed forthwith, the injunction shall be granted or
restored, as the case may be.
*private person should be prejudiced by the preliminary injunction.
Rule on prior or contemporary service of summons; when not
required:
A prelim injunction may be granted at any age of the proceedings but prior to
the judgment or final order.
Hence, an applicant for a writ of preliminary injunction or a temporary
restraining order may be included in a complaint or any initiatory pleading.

if the case is filed in a multi-sale court, the case shall be raffled but only
after notice to and in the presence of the party sought to be enjoined. it is,
however required that the notice be preceded or contemporaneously
accompanied by service of summons upon the adverse party. together with the
summons shall be copy of the complaint and the applicants affidavit and bond.
However, where the summons could not be served upon the defendant either
in person or by substituted service despite diligent efforts or when the
defendant is temporarily out of the philippines or when he is a non-resident,
the requirement of prior or contemporaneous service shall not apply.
Section 5. Preliminary injunction not granted without notice;
exception. No preliminary injunction shall be granted without
hearing and prior notice to the party or person 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 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 said 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, determine
within the same period whether or not the preliminary injunction shall
be granted, and accordingly issue the corresponding order. (Bar
Matter No. 803, 17 February 1998)
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, 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 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.
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. 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.

However, 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. (5a)
In re:
A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC December 4, 2007
(Added)
The trial court, the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbyan or the Court of
Tax Appeals that issued a writ of preliminary injunction against a
lower court, board, officer, or quasi-judicial agency shall decide the
main case or petition within six (6) months from the issuance of the
writ.
Prelim Injunction cannot be issued without a prior notice and hearing. it cannot
be issued ex parte.
Subject to the rules governing matters of extreme urgency or those
referring to great or irreparable injury, the application for a temporary
restraining order shall be acted upon only after all parties are heard in a
summary hearing. This hearing shall be conducted within 24-hours after the
sheriffs return of service and/or the records are received by the branch selected
by raffle and to which the records shall be transmitted immediately.
Where the case is raffled, the period within which to conduct a summary
hearing in an application for a temporary restraining order is not 24 hours
after the case has been raffled but 24 hrs after the record are transmitted to
the branch to which it is raffled.
Temporary restraining order:
issued to preserve the status quo until the hearing of the application for a writ
of preliminary injunction because the injunction cannot be issued ex parte.
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 in which the application for
preliminary injunction was made, may issue a TRO ex party for a period not
exceeding 20 days from service on the party or person sought to be
enjoined. Within the said 20 day period, the court must order said party or
person to show cause why the injunction shall be granted and then issue the
corresponding order.
Extreme urgency, applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury,
the executive judge of a multi-sale court or the presiding judge of a singsale court may issue ex parte a TRO effective for only 72 hrs from issuance
not service. There is also a need to immediately comply with the requirement
on service of summons and other documents as provided for in the preceding
section.

within this period, the judge, before whom the case is pending, shall conduct a
summary hearing to determine whether or not the TRO can be extended to
20 days. the 72 hour period shall be included in the maximum 20-day period
set by the rules. when the court is a multi-sale court, the TRO is not to be
issued by any other judge other than the executive judge of said court.
Note: if before expiration of TRO, prelim injunction is denied, TRO would be
deemed automatically vacated.
if no action is taken by the judge within 20-day period, the TRO would
automatically expire on the 20th day by the sheer force of law, no need for
judicial declaration.
omission to fix the period, deemed 20 day.
status quo order - is not a TRO. it is more in the nature of a cease and desist
order, has no specified duration and does not specifically direct the
performance of an act. it last until it is revoked. it duration may even be subject
to agreement of the parties. no bond is required for its issuance.
**parang decision ng court pag gustong i-maintained ung situation/status ng
contending parties.
Duration of TRO issued by:
RTC:
for 20 days, TRO takes effect from service on the party
for 72 hours, takes effect upon issuance and not from its service or notice
Gr: 20 days
Xp: 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..72 hours)
CA:
60 days from service. no discretion to extend the same
SC:
effective until further orders
Section 6. Grounds for objection to, or for motion of dissolution of,
injunction or restraining order. The application for injunction or
restraining order may be denied, upon a showing of its insufficiency.
The injunction or restraining order may also be denied, or, if granted,
may be dissolved, on other grounds upon affidavits of the party or
person enjoined, which may be opposed by the applicant also by
affidavits. 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. (6a)
provisional remedy may be availed of when a petition for certiorari under rule 6
of the ROC is filed. the filing of a petition does not interrupt the course of the
principal use unless TRO or a writ of preliminary injunction is issued against the
respondent tribunal or officer.
settled is the rule that to arrest the course of the principal action during the
pendency of certiorari proceedings, there must be a restraining order or a writ
of preliminary injunction from the higher court directed to the lower court.
RA 8975:
Section 3. Prohibition on the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Orders, Preliminary Mandatory
Injunctions. No court, except the Supreme Court, shall issue any temporary restraining order,
preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction against the government, or any of its
subdivisions, officials or any person or entity, whether public or private acting under the government
direction, to restrain, prohibit or compel the following acts:
(a) Acquisition, clearance and development of the right-of-way and/or site or location of any national
government project;
(b) Bidding or awarding of contract/ project of the national government as defined under Section 2
hereof;
(c) Commencement prosecution, execution, implementation, operation of any such contract or
(d) Termination or rescission of any such contract/project; and
(e) The undertaking or authorization of any other lawful activity necessary for such contract/project.
This prohibition shall apply in all cases, disputes or controversies instituted by a private party, including but not limited
to cases filed by bidders or those claiming to have rights through such bidders involving such contract/project. This
prohibition shall not apply when the matter is of extreme urgency involving a constitutional issue, such that unless a
temporary restraining order is issued, grave injustice and irreparable injury will arise. The applicant shall file a bond, in
an amount to be fixed by the court, which bond shall accrue in favor of the government if the court should finally
decide that the applicant was not entitled to the relief sought.
In after due hearing the court finds that the award of the contract is null and void, the court may, if appropriate under
the circumstances, award the contract to the qualified and winning bidder or order a rebidding of the same, without
prejudice to any liability that the guilty party may incur under existing laws.
Section 4. Nullity of Writs and Orders. Any temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction or preliminary
mandatory injunction issued in violation of Section 3 hereof is void and of no force and effect.
Section 6. Penal Sanction. In addition to any civil and criminal liabilities he or she may incur under existing laws, any
judge who shall issue a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction in
violation of Section 3 hereof, shall suffer the penalty of suspension of at least sixty (60) days without pay.

Republic Act No. 8975[1] expressly prohibits any court, except the Supreme
Court, from issuing any temporary restraining order (TRO), preliminary
injunction, or preliminary mandatory injunction to restrain, prohibit or compel
the Government, or any of its subdivisions or officials, or any person or entity,
whether public or private, acting under the Governments direction, from: (a)
acquiring, clearing, and developing the right-of-way, site or location of any

National Government project; (b) bidding or awarding of a contract or project of


the National Government; (c) commencing, prosecuting, executing,
implementing, or operating any such contract or project; (d) terminating or
rescinding any such contract or project; and (e) undertaking or authorizing any
other lawful activity necessary for such contract or project.
Accordingly, a Regional Trial Court (RTC) that ignores the statutory prohibition
and issues a TRO or a writ of preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory
injunction against a government contract or project acts contrary to law.
*ang haba!!!*

Appealable decisions of the Ombudsman are not stayed by injunction:


The decision of the Ombudsman is immediately executory and may not be
stayed by the filing of an appeal or issuance of an injunctive writ.
Grounds for objection to, or for motion of dissolution of, injunction or
restraining order:
1) The application for injunction or restraining order may be denied, upon
a showing of its insufficiency. Insufficient if it is not verified and supported by
any of the grounds for its issuance under sec 3 of rule 58, does not show facts
entitling the applicant to the relief demanded or is not supported by the
required bonds under sec 4 rule 58.
2) The injunction or restraining order may also be denied, or, if granted,
may be dissolved, on other grounds upon affidavits of the party or person
enjoined, which may be opposed by the applicant also by affidavits.
3) Tt may be 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. In this
case, the person enjoined shall file a bond in an amount fixed by the court
conditioned that he will pay all the damages which the applicant may suffer by
the denial or the dissolution of the injunction or restraining order.
Effect of filing a counter bond:
The mere filing of a counterbond does not necessarily warrant the dissolution
of the writ of preliminary injunction. Under Section 6 of Rule 58 of the Rules of
Court, a preliminary injunction, if granted, may be dissolved "if it appears after
hearing that although the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction, the continuance
thereof, as the case may be, would cause great damage to the defendant while
the plaintiff can be fully compensated for such damages as he may suffer, and
the defendant files a bond in an amount fixed by the judge conditioned that he
will pay all damages which the plaintiff may suffer by the ... dissolution of the

injunction." Under this quoted provision of the rules of court, the court is called
upon to exercise its discretion in determining or weighing the relative damages
that may be suffered by the parties. If the damages that may be suffered by
the defendant by the continuance of the injunction outweigh the damages that
may be suffered by the plaintiff by the dissolution of the injunction, then the
injunction should be dissolved. In the case at bar the respondent court, in
refusing to dissolve the writ of preliminary injunction, took into consideration
that "the petitioner (Belo) will suffer great and irreparable injury considering
the tremendous investment of the petitioner, his time and gigantic efforts
made to put up telephone service in Roxas City." An injunction issued to stop an
unauthorized act should not be dissolved by the mere filing of a counterbond,
otherwise, the counterbond would come the vehicle of the commission or
continuance of an unauthorized or illegal act which the injunction precisely is
intended to prevent.
Modification of the injunction:
if it appears that the extent of the preliminary injunction or restraining oder
granted is too great, it may be modified.
Grave abuse of discretion as a ground for nullifying an injunctive writ:
For grave abuse of discretion to exist as a valid ground for the nullification of
an injunctive writ, there must be a capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment, equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The power must be
exercised in an arbitrary manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and
it must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a
virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.

The trial court, the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbyan or the Court of Tax
Appeals that issued a writ of preliminary injunction against a lower court,
board, officer, or quasi-judicial agency shall decide the main case or petition
within six (6) months from the issuance of the writ.