RECENT RULING ON INJUNCTION.

 WHEN IS IT PROPER TO ISSUE AN INJUNCTIVE WRIT?

 For an injunctive writ to issue, a clear showing of extreme urgency to prevent irreparable injury and a clear and unmistakable right to it must be proven by the party seeking it.

 

WHAT IS THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION?

The primary objective of a preliminary injunction, whether prohibitory or mandatory, is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard.[1][5]

[T]he rule is well-entrenched that the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction rests upon the sound discretion of the trial court. It bears reiterating that Section 4 of Rule 58 gives generous latitude to the trial courts in this regard for the reason that conflicting claims in an application  for  a  provisional  writ  more  often  than not involve a factual determination which is not the function of appellate courts. Hence, the exercise of sound judicial discretion by the trial court in injunctive matters must not be interfered with except when there is manifest abuse, which is wanting in the present case.[2][6]  (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

 

WHEN YOU RAISE GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AS GROUND TO NULLIFY AN INJUNCTIVE WRIT WHAT MUST YOU PROVE?

You must prove that there is a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction.  Or the power must be exercised in an arbitrary manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. [3][7]

 

WHAT IS THE JURISDICTIONAL FOUNDATION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF INJUNCTION?

The jurisdictional foundation for the issuance of a writ of injunction rests on:

–                     the  existence of a cause of action;

–                     the probability of irreparable injury; and

–                     the prevention of multiplicity of suits.

 

SOURCE: SPOUSES ISAGANI AND DIOSDADA CASTRO VS. SPOUSES REGINO SE AND VIOLETA DELA CRUZ, SPOUSES EDUARDO AND CHARITO PEREZ AND MARCELINO TOLENTINO (G.R. NO. 190122, 10 JANUARY 2011,   CARPIO MORALES, J.)


[1][5]   Dolmar Realty Estate Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 172990, February 27, 2008, 547 SCRA 114-115.

[2][6]   Land Bank of the Philippines v. Continental Watchman Agency, Incorporated, G.R. No. 136114, January 22, 2004, 420 SCRA 624, 625.

[3][7]   People v. Romualdez, G.R. No. 166510, July 23, 2008, 559 SCRA 492, 494.