Gustilo vs.

Real
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1250, February 28, 2001

ISSUE: Whether or not injunction may be issued without hearing?

I agree with the decision of the court that before an injunctive writ can be issued, it is essential that the
following requisites be present: (1) there must be a right in esse or the existence of a right to be
protected; and (2) the act against which injunction to be directed is a violation of such right.  There must
be a showing that the invasion of the right is material and substantial and that there is an urgent and
paramount necessity for the writ to prevent a serious damage.

The Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 20-05 expressly provided that the TRO shall be acted
upon only after all the parties are heard in a summary hearing conducted within 24 hours after the
records are transmitted to the branch selected by raffle. In this case, complainant had been duly
proclaimed as the winning candidate for punong barangay. He had taken his oath of office. Unless his
election was annulled, he was entitled to all the rights of said office. We do not see how the
complainants exercise of such rights would cause an irreparable injury or violate the right of the losing
candidate so as to justify the issuance of a temporary restraining order to maintain the status quo.

Clearly, the judge issued the TRO, without observing the requirements under the Administrative
Circular, was held guilty in knowingly rendering an unjust order, gross ignorance of the law and
procedure, and bias and partiality.

Idolor vs. CA
G.R. No. 141853, February 7, 2001

ISSUE: Whether or not the injunction made in favor of Idolor was proper?

I agree with the decision of the court saying that the injunction was not properly made to Idolor. As
discussed, Injunction is a preservative remedy aimed at protecting substantive rights and interests.
Injunction being a remedy has the following requisites for it to be present: 1) there must be aright in
esse or the existence of a right to be protected; 2) the act against which the injunction is to be directed
is a violation of such right. Without complying with these requisites will result on the denying of the
injunctive relief prayed by the applicant.

Here, the failure of Idolor to comply with her undertaking in the "kasunduan" to settle her obligation
effectively delayed De Guzman’s right to extra-judicially foreclose the real estate mortgage. Thus, Idolor
has not shown that she is entitled to the equitable relief of injunction. Idolor also has no more
proprietary right to speak of over the foreclosed property to entitle her to the issuance of a writ of
injunction. It appears that the mortgaged property was sold in a public auction to Gumersindo and the
sheriff's certificate of sale was registered with the Registry of Deeds. Idolor failed to show sufficient
interest or title in the property sought to be protected as her right of redemption had already expired,
two (2) days before the filing of the complaint. It is always a ground for denying injunction that the party
seeking it has insufficient title or interest to sustain it, and no claim to the ultimate relief sought - in
other words, that she shows no equity.
Clearly, the petitioner in this case already lost her right to make use the preventive remedy of injunction
because of her failure to establish that either the existence of a clear and positive right which should be
judicially protected through writ has been violated.