2.

Preliminary Injunction

such a writ before the case can be

regularly tried

2.1. Definition and Nature (Sec. 1)

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.
Strong arm of equity
Used with extreme caution, affecting as it
does the respective rights of the parties
Merely temporary
Provisional it constitutes a temporary
measure availed of during the pendency
Ancillary mere incident in and is
independent upon the result if the main
action
Preservative remedy for the protection of
substantive rights or interests
Not a cause of action in itself
As an Equitable Remedy one who comes to
claim for equity must do so with clean hands
Rests upon an alleged existence of an
emergency or of a special reason for

NOT a Judgment on the Merits

Generally based solely on initial and
incomplete evidence
Evidence submitted during the hearing
on an application 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
Order
granting
is
not
a
final
resolution/decision disposing of the case
Findings of fact and opinion of a court
when issuing the writ are interlocutory.
Trial court needs to conduct substantial
proceedings in order to put the main
controversy to rest
Issuance as Subject to Judicial Discretion
The exercise of judicial discretion by the
trial court in injunctive matters must not
be inferred with, except when there is
manifest abuse
Grave abuse of discretion implies a
capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment that is equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction, or where the power is

exercised 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 contemplation of law
Purpose:
A remedy that a party may resort to in
order to preserve and protect certain
rights and interests during the pendency
of an action.
Sole objective: To preserve the status quo
until the merits of the case can be heard
fully
Issued by the court to prevent threatened
or continuous irreparable injury to parties
before their claims can be thoroughly
studied and adjudicated
Status Quo the last actual, peaceful,
uncontested status that precedes the
actual controversy, that which is existing
at the time of the filing of the case
2.2. When writ is granted
Stage of proceedings when granted: at any
stage of the action/proceeding prior to the
judgment or final order
Against whom it is directed:

a)
b)
c)
d)

Party
Court
Agency
Personal

Who may grant:

Court where the action is pending
CA or SC
Grounds: (Sec. 3)
(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.

Requisites: (Jurisprudence)
a) Applicant must have a clear &
unmistakable right, that is, a right in
esse
b) There is material and substantial
invasion of such right
c) There is an urgent need to issue the
writ in order to prevent irreparable
injury to the applicant
d) No other ordinary, speedy, and
adequate remedy exists to prevent
the infliction of irreparable injury
Clear Legal Right one clearly founded in
or granted by law or is enforceable as a
matter of law
Writ is issued upon the satisfaction of 2
requisites:
o Existence of a right to be protected
o Acts which are violative of said
right
In the absence of the legal right, the
issuance of injunctive relief constitutes
grave abuse of discretion
Quantum of Evidence Required:
To establish essential requisites, the
evidence to be submitted by the plaintiff
at the hearing need not be conclusive
and complete.

Only required to show that they have an

ostensible right to the final relief prayed
for in their complaint
Only a sampling is needed to give the
trial court an idea of the justification for
prelim injunction pending the decision of
the case on the merits
While it is not required that the right
claimed be conclusively established, it is
still necessary to show that the right
exists and is not vitiated by any
substantial challenge or contradiction
Note: Although the general rule is that a
sampling of evidence is required, there are
also instances when the writ can be issued
based on the verified application, provided
there is notice and hearing. A judge is given
a wide latitude of discretion in issuing writ
after the hearing, especially when a clear
and mistakable right to the issuance can be
gleaned from affidavits or the verified
application and its supporting documents.
(Crisologo v. Omerio)
2.3. Classes of Preliminary Injunction
Classes:

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(Ancillary Remedy)
Order granted at any stage
of the action or proceeding
prior to the judgment or final
order, requiring a party or a
court, agency, or a person to
refrain from or to perform
particular act or acts (Sec. 1,
Rule 58)
GR: Bond is required
XPN: Exempted by court
(Sec. 4, Rule 58)

FINAL INJUNCTION
(Injunction as Main
Action)
Issued after final judgment
of the case permanently
restraining the defendant or
making the preliminary
injunction permanent (Sec.
9, Rule 58)

No bond is required

To preserve the status quo

Act has already been

performed and this act has
violated the rights of another
Purpose is to restore the
status quo and preserve it

Prelim Mandatory Injunction is more

cautiously regarded than a mere a
prohibitive injunction since, more than its
function of preserving the status quo
between the parties, it also commands
the performance of an act
2.4. Requirements and Procedure for
the Issuance

See page 81-83

Kinds:
Prohibitory Injunction which commands
one to refrain from doing a particular act
Mandatory Injunction which commands
the performance of some positive act to
correct a wrong in the past
PROHIBITORY INJUNCTION
Requires one to refrain from
a particular act/s

Act has not yet been

performed because it is
restrained/ prevented by the
injunction

MANDATORY INJUNCTION
Requires the performance
a particular act/s
Commands the performance
of some positive act to
correct a wrong in the past

Requisites for Issuance of a Writ of PI

or TRO (Riano)
1) There must be verified applications
(Sec.4[a])
Absence of a verification makes
an
application/petition
insufficient both in form and
substance
2) Applicant must establish:
a) Existence of a clear &
unmistakable right that
must be protected

b) Urgent
&
paramount
necessity for the writ to
prevent serious damages
Right is not merely contingent.
It is a right clearly founded on
or granted by law or is
enforceable as a matter of law
3) Applicant must a bond, unless
exempted by the court (Sec. 4[b])
Amount to be fixed by the court
This shall be executed in favor
of the party enjoined
Condition: 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
4) The court shall conduct a hearing
(Sec. 5)
Writ cannot be issued without a
prior notice & hearing

The application for TRO shall be acted

upon ONLY AFTER all parties are heard in
a summary hearing which shall be
conducted within 24 hours after the
sheriffs return of service and/or the

records are received by the branch

selected by raffle & to which the records
shall be transmitted immediately. (Sec. 4
[d])
TRO, unlike the prelim injunction, may be
issued ex parte.
Posting a Bond:
An applicant is required to file a bond
executed to the party sought to be
enjoined
Condition: Applicant will pay to such
party all damages he may sustain by
reason of the injunction
Purpose: To protect the defendant
against loss & 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
Applicant may be exempted by the court
from posting a bond (Sec. 4)
Party filing shall serve a copy of such
bond on the other party
The
other
party
may
take
exceptions/object to the sufficiency of the
bond or of the surety/ies thereon
If the applicant bond is found to be
insufficient in amount & bond sufficient in
amount w/ sufficient sureties is not filed

o Injunction shall be dissolved

If the bond of the adverse party is
found to be insufficient in amount, and a
bond sufficient in amount w/ sufficient
sureties is not filed
o Injunction
shall
be
granted/restored, as the case may
be (Sec. 7)
Rule on prior or contemporary service
of summons; when not required:
Note that, a PI may be granted at any
stage of the proceedings but prior to the
judgment
or
final
order,
HENCE,
application for a writ of PI or a TRO may
be included in a complaint
If the case is filed in multi-sala court,
case shall be raffled but only AFTER
notice to and in the presence of the party
sought to be enjoined
Notice
shall
be
preceded
or
contemporaneously
accompanied
by:
o service of summons upon the
adverse party
o copy of the complaint
o applicants affidavit
o applicants bond
Note: The requirement of prior or
contemporary service shall not apply

where the summons could not be served

upon the defendant either in person or
by substituted service despite diligent
efforts or where the defendant is
temporarily out of the PH or when he is a
non-resident
Notice & Hearing: (Sec. 5)
Writ cannot be issued without prior
notice & hearing
o It cannot be issued ex parte
Subject to the riles governing matters of
extreme urgency, or those referring to
great or irreparable injury Application
for a TRO shall be acted upon only after
all parties are heard in a summary
hearing
o Hearing shall be conducted within
24 hours after the sheriffs return of
service service and/or the records
are received by the branch
selected by raffle & to which the
records
shall
be
transmitted
immediately.
Note: 24 hours after the
records are transmitted to
the branch, not after the case
has been raffled

Grounds for objection to, or for motion

of
dissolution
of,
injunction
or
restraining order: (Sec. 6)
upon a showing of its insufficiency
upon affidavits of the party or person
enjoined, which may be opposed by
the applicant also by affidavits
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
o If it appears that the extent of
the preliminary injunction or
restraining order granted is too
great, it may be modified.
Effect of filing a Counterbond:
Does not necessarily warrant the
dissolution of the writ of PI
A PI, 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

o while the applicant can be fully

compensated for such damages
as he may suffer, and the
defendant 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.
Grant of Final Injunction (Sec. 9)
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
2.5. Temporary Restraining Order
Note: Sec. 4 establishes the same
requirements for the issuance of PI and TRO
except that the latter may, in some cases,
be issued ex parte pursuant to Sec. 5
TRO (Sec. 5)

 Issued to preserve the status quo until

the hearing of the application for writ of
PI, bec the inunction cannot be issued ex
parte
Great & Irreparable Injury
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
o Court may issue a TRO to be
effective only for a period of
(20) days from service on the
party or person sought to be
enjoined,
except
as
herein
provided.
o Within the said 20 days period, the
court must order:
said party or person to
show
cause,
why
the
injunction should not be
granted
determine whether or not
the preliminary injunction
shall be granted, and
accordingly
issue
the
corresponding order
Extreme Urgency (Sec. 5)

If the matter is of extreme urgency and

the applicant will suffer grave injustice
and irreparable injury
o the executive judge of a multiplesala court or the presiding judge of
a single sala court may issue ex
parte a TRO effective for only
(72) hours from issuance
o but he shall immediately comply
with the provisions of the section
as to service of summons and
the documents to be served
therewith.
o Thereafter, within the said (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 multi-sala court, TRO is not
to be issued by any other
judge
other
than
the
executive judge of said court
If, before the 20-day period, the
application for PI is denied
o TRO would be automatically denied
If no action is taken by the judge within
the 20-day period

o TRO would automatically expire on

the 20th day no judicial
declaration to that effect being
necessary
Failure to fixed a period in the TRO does
not convert it to a PI

Great & Irreparable injury

Ex parte
Not exceeding 20 days from
service

Extreme Urgency

Ex parte
Effective only for 72 hours
from issuance

Extension of TRO
o Extending/renewing the TRO is
prohibited
only
if
the
extension/renewal is based on the
very same ground upon which the
TRO was originally issued
Improper for a judge to order a
hearing on the issuance of a TRO
when it was not prayed for in the
complaint

CA or any member

Effective for 60 days from

service

PI
Order granted at any stage
of the action or proceeding
prior to the judgment or final
order, requiring a party or a
court, agency, or a person to
refrain from or to perform
particular act or acts
Notice
&
required

Hearing

2nd TRO after the expiration

of the 60-day period =
patent nullity
SC or a member

Effective until further orders

TRO
Issued to preserve the status
quo until the hearing of the
application for writ of PI, bec
the inunction cannot be
issued ex parte
Can be issued ex parte

are

Duration of TRO; Not extendible

2.6. Prohibition on injunction under

special laws
RA 8975
No court, except SC, shall issue TRO or PI
against the govt or any of its subdivisions,

officials or any person or entity, whether

public or private acting under the govt
direction to restrain, prohibit of compel the
ff 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 project;
(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.
Prohibition shall not apply when the matter
is of extreme urgency involving a
constitutional issue
Violation: Order is void and of no force &
effect
o Judge shall suffer civil & criminal
liability + suspension of at least 60
days

Other prohibitions:
1. Against Department of Public Works and
Highways to stop government infrastructure
projects (Secs. 3 & 4, RA8975)
XPNs:
a. Extreme urgency
b. Matter involves a constitutional issue
c. Grave injustice and irreparable injury will arise
d. Supreme Court may issue the writ of
preliminary injunction
Note: Injunctive writs cannot be issued against any
person or entity involved in the execution,
implementation and operation of government
infrastructure projects (P.D. 1818).

2. Act/s perpetrated outside the inferior courts

territorial jurisdiction
3. Against judgments of coordinate courts and
quasi judicial bodies of equal rank
4. Issuance will effectively dispose of the main
case without trial and/or due process
5. Labor disputes
6. In issuance of licenses, concessions as to
disposition,
exploitation,
utilization,
exploration and/or development of natural
resources (Sec. 1, PD605)

7. Implementation of Comprehensive Agrarian

Reform Program, collection of taxes,
criminal prosecutions
8. Mandatory foreclosure of a mortgage by a
government financial institution (Sec. 2, P.D.
385) XPN: After hearing, it is established that 20%
of outstanding arrearages is paid after the filing of
the foreclosure proceedings

9. Act/s sought
consummated

to

be

enjoined

already

XPN: Preliminary mandatory injunction may be

availed of such that the dispossessor in forcible entry
can be compelled to restore possession to the
original possessor and an electric company can be
compelled to provisionally reconnect the service it
had disconnected.

10.
To transfer the property in litigation
from the possession of one party to another
where the legal title is in dispute and the
party having possession asserts ownership
thereto
XPN: a. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases
preliminary mandatory injunction may be issued
(Sec. 15, Rule 70)

11. Generally, injunction will not be granted to take

property out of the possession of one party and
place it in another whose title not clearly

established;
12. When action for damages would adequately
compensate injuries caused (Golding v. Balatbat,
36 Phil.941);
13. To prevent directors from discharging their offices
and restoring former directors;
14. To restrain criminal prosecution where the
Ombudsman had authorized the Special
prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation
or to file an injunction.

Do not forget the modifications of the 2007 circular to

Rule 58. The modification is that if a court has
issued a writ of PI which has no term (not lifted
until finally decided or until ordered), the court
that issued such writ of PI must decide the
principal action within a period of 6 months. This
is the modification in the 2007 circular. If the court
does not place a limit
of 6 months to decide the principal action, the writ will
be effectively be a perpetual injunction, because it is
effective until the case has finally been decided. If the
court grants the PI today, it has only 6 months within
which to decide the case. In deciding the principal
case, the court could rule in favor of the plaintiff or
defendant. If ruled in favor of the defendant, the PI is

automatically lifted, meaning the plaintiff has no right

at all to ask for the writ of PI.