Blog Archives

Civil Procedure: Rule 58

Preliminary Injunction

 Rule 58

Sec. 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.

The primary purpose of injunction is to preserve the status quo by restraining action or interference or by furnishing preventive relief. The status quo is the last actual, peaceable, uncontested status which precedes the pending controversy.

A mandatory injunction is an extreme remedy and will be granted only on a showing that (a) the invasion of the right is material and substantial, (b) the right of the complainant is clear and unmistakable, and (c) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.

 

Distinctions between injunction and prohibition

  1. Injunction is generally directed against a party  in the action while prohibition is directed against a court, tribunal or person exercising judicial powers;
  2. Injunction does not involve the jurisdiction of the court, whereas prohibition may be on the ground that the court against whom the writ is sought acted without or in excess of jurisdiction;
  3. Injunction may be the main action itself, or just a provisional remedy in the main action, whereas prohibition is always a main action. Hence, for temporary restraint in a proceeding for prohibition, preliminary injunction must be sought therein.

 

Bataclan v. Court of Appeals

175 SCRA

A writ of preliminary injunction is primarily intended to maintain the status quo between the parties existing prior to the filing of the case. As an ancillary or preventive remedy, it may only be 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.

Courts should not just summarily issue an order of denial without an adequate hearing and judicious evaluation of the merits of the application as the same would be a denial of procedural due process and could result in irreparable prejudice to a party.

 

Sec. 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.

 

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 probable in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.

 

Bacolod Murcia Milling v. Capitol

17 SCRA

For the writ of preliminary injunction to issue, there must be a showing based on facts that the party availing of the remedy is entitled to the relief demanded.

An injunction will not issue to protect a right not in esse and which may never arise or to restrain an act, which does not give rise to a cause of action

The function of an injunction is the maintenance of the status quo as of the time of its issuance. In the case at bar, the right of the Central in using the railway has already expired: there being no right to be protected anymore, the writ of preliminary injunction cannot be had.

 

Merville Park Homeowners Association Inc. v. Velez

196 SCRA

Where the village association seeks to take possession and control of the waterworks system from the Salandanan who failed to undertake certain contractual obligations necessary to assure the homeowners of a steady water supply, a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction will not be granted absent a showing that the severe water shortage had not been remedied and that a clear and present danger of the same or similar default on Salandanan’s part, threatening the same severe consequences for the subdivision residents.

 

A preliminary mandatory injunction is not a proper remedy to take property out of the possession and control of one party and to deliver the same to the other party where possession of such property is being disputed. It may issue pendente lite only in cases of extreme urgency, where the right to the possession, during the pendency of the main case, of the property involved is very clear; where the considerations of relative inconvenience bear strongly in favor of the complainant seeking the possession of pendente lite; where there was willful and unlawful invasion of plaintiff’s rights, over his protest and remonstrance the injury being a continuing one; where the effect of the preliminary mandatory injunction is to re-establish and maintain a pre-existing and continuing relationship between the parties, recently and arbitrarily interrupted by the defendant, rather than to establish a new relationship during the pendency of the principal case. It is for the party requesting the writ to demonstrate clearly the presence of one or more of the above grounds.

 

Sec. 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.

            (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.

 

Sec. 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 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, nay 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 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.

            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.

Temporary restraining order, when issued

  1. When great or irreparable injury would result to the applicant even before the application is heard on notice; 20-day temporary restraining order is issued.
  2. If the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury, the court may issue ex parte a 72-hour temporary restraining order; can only be issued by the executive judge of a multiple-sala court or by the presiding judge of a single-sala court.

 

The judge issuing a 72-hour TRO is obliged to conduct a summary hearing within the effectivity of the 72-hour TRO to determine whether the TRO shall be extended in which case, the same is converted into a 20-day TRO. Within the 20-day period of effectivity of the TRO the court shall determine in a hearing whether or not the preliminary injunction is to be granted. This 20-day period is inextendible.

 

Thus, a TRO may be converted to a preliminary injunction, which in turn may be converted into a final injunction. TRO and preliminary injunction are issued to maintain the status quo ante, that is, prior to the institution of the main action. A final injunction confirms a preliminary injunction and perpetually enjoins a party or person from doing the act/s complained of.

 

Effectivity of TROs:

 

TRO issued by trail court may either be for 72 hours or 20 days; if issued by the CA or a member thereof, it shall be effective for sixty (60) days; TROs0 issued by the SC shall be effective until further notice.

Social Security Commission v. Bayona

5 SCRA

Damages are irreparable within the meaning of the rule relative to the issuance of injunction when 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.”

 

For an injury to be irreparable, it does not have to refer to the amount of damages that may be caused but rather to the difficulty of measuring the damages inflicted.  If full compensation can be obtained by way of damages, equity will not apply the remedy of injunction.

Sec. 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 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.

Sec. 7. Service of copies of bonds; effect of disapproval of same. – 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, 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, the injunction shall be granted or restored, as the case may be.

Sec. 8. 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.

Sec. 9. When final injunction granted. – 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 or confirming the preliminary mandatory injunction.

 

Gilchrist v. Cuddy

29 Phil 542

 

Reference:  University of the Philippines

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 230 other followers