WRIT OF INJUNCTION

To be entitled to an injunctive writ, petitioner must show, inter alia, the existence of a clear and unmistakable right and an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. (Wilson Ong Ching KIan Chuan vs. Court of Appeals and Lorenzo Tan, GR No. 130360, August 15, 2001)

The SC held that in the absence of proof of a legal right and the injury sustained by the plaintiff, an order of the trial court granting the issuance of an injunctive writ will be set aside, for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. (Developers Group of Companies, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 219 SCRA 715 (1993) cited in Wilson Ong Ching KIan Chuan vs. Court of Appeals and Lorenzo Tan, GR No. 130360, August 15, 2001) REQUISITES:

In order that injunction may issue, two requisites must concur: (1) the existence of a right to be protected; and (2) the facts against which the injunction is to be directed are violative of said right. (Eduardo Tan vs. Florita Mueco and Rolando Mueco, GR No. 141540, October 26, 2001, Ynares-Santiago, J.)

Injunction, like other equitable remedies, should be issued only at the instance of a suitor who has sufficient interest in or title to the right or the property sought to be protected. It is proper only when the plaintiff appears to be entitled to the relief demanded in the complaint. In particular, the existence of the right and the violation thereof must appear in the allegations of the complaint and must constitute at least a prima facie showing of a right to the final relief. Thus, there are two requisites conditions for the issuance of a preliminary injunction, namely, (1) the right to be protected exists prima facie; and (2) the acts sought to be enjoined are violative of that right. It must be proven that the violation sought to be prevented would cause an irreparable injustice. (Los Banos Rural Bank, Inc. vs. Pacita O. Africa, et.al. GR NO. 143994, July 11, 2002)

PURPOSES:

Injunction is a preservative remedy for the protection of one’s substantive right or interest. It is granted only when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences which cannot be remedied under any standard compensation. Its issuance rests upon the existence of an emergency or a special reason before the main case can be regularly heard. It is for the party requesting an injunction to demonstrate clearly the presence of one or more of the grounds for its issuance. (Lorenzo Pascual, et.al. vs. Judge Cesar M. Dumlao, et.al., A.M. No. MTJ-01-1350, July 20, 2001, Mendoza, J.)

“Irreparable injury does not have reference to the amount of damages that may be caused but rather to the difficulty of measuring the damages inflicted.” (Lorenzo Pascual, et.al. vs. Judge Cesar M. Dumlao, et.al., A.M. No. MTJ-01-1350, July 20, 2001, Mendoza, J.) The sole objective of a writ of preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard fully. (Heirs of Joaquin Asuncion vs, Gervacio, Jr. 304 SCRA 322)

Injunction will not lie to take the property out of control of the party in possession. (S & G Gaisano Incorporated vs. Hidalgo, 192 SCRA 224)

A doubtful title plus the fact that defendants were not in possession of the property prior to the filing of the instant complaint would militate against the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction in their favor.

He who seeks the equitable relief of injunction must come with clean hands. A litigant maybe denied relief by a court of equity on the ground that his conduct has been inequitable, unfair, honest, fraudulent or deceitful as to the controversy in issue. (Pilapil vs. Garchitorena, 299 SCRA 343)

It is a basic procedural postulate that a preliminary injunction is not proper where its purpose is to take the property out of control or possession of one party and transfer the same to the hands of another who did not have such control at the inception of the case and whose title has not been clearly established by law. (Ortanez-Enderes vs. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA !78)

Injunction contemplates acts being committed or about to be committed, hence injunction does not lie against acts already consummated. (Romulo vs. Iniguez, GR No. 71908, February 4, 1986)

NOTE: Injunction as a principal action. (See Placido O. Urbanes, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, et.al. GR No. 117964, March 28, 2001)

“Injunction is a preservative remedy for the protection of one’s substantive right or interest. It is granted only when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences which cannot be remedied under any standard compensation. Its issuance rests upon the existence of an emergency or a special reason before the main case can be regularly heard. It is for the party requesting an injunction to demonstrate clearly the presence of one or more of the grounds for its issuance.”1

“It is a basic procedural postulate that a preliminary injunction is not proper where its purpose is to take the property out of control or possession of one party and transfer the same to the hands of another who did not have such control at the inception of the case and whose title has not been clearly established by law.”2

A doubtful title plus the fact that defendants were not in possession of the property prior to the filing of the instant

1 Lorenzo Pascual, et.al. vs. Judge Cesar M. Dumlao, et.al., A.M. No. MTJ-01-1350, July 20, 2001, Mendoza, J.

2Ortanez-Enderes vs. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA !78.

complaint would militate against the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction in their favor.

“He who seeks the equitable relief of injunction must come with clean hands. A litigant maybe denied relief by a court of equity on the ground that his conduct has been inequitable, unfair, honest, fraudulent or deceitful as to the controversy in issue.”3

An injunction to stay a final and executory decision is unavailing, except only after showing that facts and circumstances exist which would render execution unjust or inequitable, or that a change in the situation of the parties occurred. (Philippine Sinter Corporation vs. Cagayan Electric Power and Light Co., Inc., G.R. No. 127371, 25 April 2002)

3 Pilapil vs. Garchitorena, 299 SCRA 343.