PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

RULE 58
Rodriguez, Mary Grace D.
Adriano, Princess Ruth B.

PURPOSE
To preserve the status quo or to prevent future
wrongs in order to preserve and protect certain
interests or rights during the pendency of the
action

Section 1. Preliminary Injunction

defined; classes.
WHAT
1. an order requiring a party or a court, agency,
or a person to refrain from a particular act or
acts (Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction)
2. an or order requiring the performance of a
particular act or acts
(Preliminary Mandatory Injunction)

Section 1. Preliminary Injunction

defined; classes.
WHEN
granted at any stage of an action or proceeding
prior to the judgment or final order

Section 4, Rule 39
Injunction may be an action in itself,
brought specifically to restrain or
command the performance of an act.
As an action, it is immediately
executory.

Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction vs

Preliminary Mandatory Injunction
Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction
-prevent a person from the performance of an act,
act had not yet been performed, status quo is
Preserved
Preliminary Mandatory Injunction
-require a person to perform a particular act,
Act has already been performed and such has
violated the rights of another, status quo is
restored

Section 2. Who may grant preliminary

injunction.
BY WHOM
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.

Can a court issue a writ of injunction to stop the

enforcement of a judgment rendered by another
court or body of coordinate or equal jurisdiction?
The general rule is NO.
But there is an EXCEPTION.

Salas vs. Castro, G.R. No. 100416,

December 2, 1992
When a third party asserts a claim over the
property levied upon by the sheriff, said third
party may vindicate his claim by an independent
action in the proper court which may issue an
injunctive writ to stop the execution of the
judgment on the property claimed by the third
party.

Cabigao vs. Del Rosario, G.R. No.

76838, April 17, 1990, 184 SCRA
374, 378
The Supreme Court laid down the doctrine that no
court has the power to interfere by injunction with
the judgments or decrees of a court of concurrent
jurisdiction having power to grant the relief
sought by injunction. (General Rule)

Prohibitory Injunction/Mandatory Injunction

vs Prohibition/Mandamus (Rule 65)

PARTIES
JURISDICTION ON COURT
KIND OF ACTION

Section 3. Grounds for issuance of

preliminary injunction.
(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

Section 3. Grounds for issuance of

preliminary injunction.
(b) That the commission, continuance or nonperformance of the act or acts complained of
during the litigation would probably work
injustice to the applicant; or

Office of the Ombudsman vs De Chavez, 700

SCRA 399, July 3, 2013
For a writ of preliminary injunction to issue, the
Following essential requisites must concur, to wit:
1) That the invasion of a right is material and
substantial
2) That the right of complainant is clear and
unmistakable
3) That there is an urgent and paramount
necessity for the writ to prevent serious
damage

Section 3. Grounds for issuance of

preliminary injunction.
(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.

Australian Professional Realty, Inc. et.al. vs. Municipality of

Garcia, Batangas Province, G.R. No. 183367, March 14, 2012

A clear and legal right means one clearly founded

in or granted by law or is enforceable as a matter
of law. In the absence of a clear legal right, the
issuance of the writ constitutes grave abuse of
discretion.

Section 4. Verified application and

bond for preliminary injunction or
temporary restraining order.
PRIOR & CONTEMPORANEOUS RULE
APPLIES except on the following cases:
summons could not be served personally or by
substituted service
the adverse party is a resident of the Philippines
temporarily absent therefrom
nonresident

Section 4. Verified application and

bond for preliminary injunction or
temporary restraining order.
(d) all parties are heard in a summary hearing
which shall be conducted within twenty-four (24)
hours after the sheriffs return of service and/or
the records are received by the branch selected by
raffle

Section 4. Verified application and

bond for preliminary injunction or
temporary restraining order.
(a) verified; shows facts entitling the applicant to
the relief demanded
(b) files a bond executed to the party or person
enjoined, in an amount to be fixed by the court
(c) 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

GENERAL RULE
A writ of preliminary injunction should not
issue to take (the properties) out of the
possession of one party to place it in the
hand of another.
Medina vs Greenfield Dev`t. Corporation,
G.R. No. 140228, November 19, 2004

Exception

A possessor deprived of
his property through
forcible entry

Section 5. Preliminary injunction not

granted without notice; exception.
General Rule
No hearing and notice, no grant of Preliminary
Injunction
Exception
great or irreparable injury

What happens next?

may issue ex parte a temporary restraining order
which is valid for 20 days
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

Temporary restraining order, when issued

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.
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.

Social Security Commission v. Bayona,

Damages are irreparable within the
meaning of the rule relative to the issuance of
injunction where

there is no
standard by which their
amount can be measured
with reasonable accuracy."

Social Security Commission v. Bayona, GR No. L-13555

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.
(Emphasis supplied)

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

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 person to
either refrain from or
perform acts during
the pendency of the
action.

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER

Is issued to
preserve the
status quo until
the hearing of
the application
for preliminary
injunction.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER

Remains until
dissolve;
Has a lifetime of :
RTC/MTC = 20
days
CA = 60 days
SC = effective until
further orders

TRO VALIDITY
- Shall not exceed twenty (20) days, including the
original seventy-two hours provided
- If denied or not resolved within the said period,
deemed automatically vacated

-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

What if the matter is of extreme

urgency and the applicant will suffer
grave injustice and irreparable injury?
issue ex parte a temporary restraining order
effective for only seventy-two (72) hours
shall immediately comply with the provisions of the
next preceding section as to service of summons
conduct a summary hearing to determine whether
the temporary restraining order shall be extended
until the application for preliminary injunction can
be heard

What if issued by the CA or SC?

CA : shall be effective for sixty (60) days from
service on the party or person sought to be
Enjoined
SC: shall be effective until further orders

Paras vs roura
A TRO issued by the TC or CA expires
automatically upon the lapse of 20 days period
and 60 day period respectively. There is no need
for any judicial declaration of dissolution

Federation of land reform farmers of the

Philippines vs CA
While the efficacy of a TRO is ordinarily, non
extendible and trial courts have no discretion to
extend it considering the mandatory tenor of
ruke 58, there is no reason to prevent a court
from extending the 20 day period when it is the
parties themselves who ask for such extension or
for the maintenance of status quo.

Grounds for objection to, or for motion of dissolution of, injunction or restraining order.

1. Upon showing of insuffiency of the application;

2. If granted, may be dissolved, on other grounds upon
affidavits of the party or person enjoined;
3. If it appears that it would cause irreparable damage to
the party or person enjoined, WHILE,
the applicant can be fully compensated for damages he
may suffer,
and the party enjoins files a counter bond.
4. Applicants bond is insufficient in amount; and
5, applicants surety or sureties is insufficient.

G.R. No. L-31135

THE DIRECTOR OR OFFICER-IN-CHARGE OF THE BUREAU OF
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
vs.HON. JOSE A. ALIGAEN

The mere filing of a counterbond does not

necessarily warrant the dissolution of the writ of
preliminary injunction.
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.

Canlas vs Aquino.
A motion for the dissolution of the writ of
preliminary injunction must be verified.

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 sec20 of Rule 57.

Sec 9 final injunction granted

WHEN
After trial of the action it appears that the
applicant is entitled to have the act or acts
complained of permanently enjoined.

QUESTIONS
May a writ of preliminary injunction be issued ex
parte?
If the court issues an order discharging the writ
of injunction, when will the order be effective?
Does the Commission on Human Rights have
the authority to issue injunctive order?