RULE 58 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Section 1. Preliminary injunction defined; classes. - A 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 preliminary mandatory injunction.

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 or to require the performance of a particular act or acts. - is sometimes called strong arm of equity. TYPES OF INJUNCTION: 1. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 2. FINAL INJUNCTION 2 TYPES OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: 1. PREVENTIVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 2. MANDATORY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Q: What is a preventive preliminary injunction? A: A preventive preliminary injunction is one which requires a person to refrain from doing a particular act or acts. Q: What is a mandatory preliminary injunction? A: A mandatory preliminary injunction is one which requires a person to perform a particular act or acts.
Q: What is a FINAL INJUNCTION? A: A final injunction is one which is included in the judgment as the relief or part of the relief granted as the result of the case. Final injunction is the one mentioned section 9 of this Rule.

Section 9: When final injunction granted. - 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 or confirming the preliminary mandatory injunction. That is not a provisional remedy. That is the main relief. So, the preliminary injunction becomes now total and permanent. So, if I want to permanently stop you from doing an act I will have to file a case for injunction, which is a main action for injunction. And if I want to pray, while the case is going on that you should be also prevented from doing the same act---I have to apply for a writ of preliminary injunction, in civil, it is worded this way: Civil case for injunction with writ of preliminary injunction. The injunction is the final injunction and the writ is the provisional one. So the former is the main relief while the latter is the temporary relief. Purpose of preliminary injunction: To maintain the status quo between the parties in relation to the subject matter. STATUS QUO is the last peaceable and uncontested status of the parties which preceded the pending case from the controversy. Section 2. Who may grant preliminary injunction. - 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. Q: Who may grant a preliminary injunction? A: 1. The court where the case is pending. 2. CA. 3. SC. Section 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction.-A preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established: a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole 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 in justice 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. (3a)

Q: What is the area of enforceability of a writ of injunction? A: Go back to the Interim Rules, Section 3-A. If the writ of preliminary injunction is issued by the SC and CA, there is no problem. That is enforceable throughout the country. Q: What about an injunction issued by the RTC? A: It cannot be enforced outside the region where such RTC is located. Well, there is ONE EXCEPTION. That is in the case of EMBASSY FARMS, INC vs. CA, 188 SCRA 492 reiterating the earlier case of DAGUPAN ELECTRIC CORP. vs. PAO, 95 SCRA 693. Note: GENERAL RULE: No court can issue a writ of preliminary injunction to interfere with the judgments, processes of a co-equal court. So, the RTC cannot enjoin another RTC. Also, the RTC cannot enjoin acts/proceedings in connection with a case pending before a co-equal quasi-judicial body. Like for example: the RTC cannot enjoin the Labor arbiter. The RTC cannot enjoin the SEC. Because these are co-equal bodies. EXCEPTION: That situation that no court can interfere in the process of a co-equal court should not be conferred with the situation which is contemplated in the case of Manila Herald vs.IAC 133 SCRA 141.

TWO REQUISITES IN INJUNCTION:

1. The plaintiff must clearly show the existence of a right sought to be protected. 2. And the injunction is directed against the violation of the said right. So there must be a right sought to be protected. If there is no right which ought to be protected, there could be no injunction.

Instances where the issuance of injunction was held to be proper: 1) In petitions for certiorari or prohibition and mandamus.

2) In an action to annul a judgment or enjoin its enforcement. Instances where injunction is inappropriate: 1) Injunction is inappropriate in enjoining an act which is already consummated. 2) A criminal prosecution cannot be enjoined or restrained. You cannot prevent the fiscal from conducting criminal investigation and the court cannot prevent him from conducting an investigation. The remedy is to go to his superior or if you believe that there is no case, the remedy is to go to trial. But the general rule: The criminal prosecution cannot be enjoined. But there are exceptions :
BROCKA vs ENRILE December 10, 1990 (192 SCRA 183) HELD: The primary issue here is the legality of enjoining the criminal prosecution of a case, since the two other issues raised by Brocka, et al. are matters of defense against the sedition charge. We rule in favor of Brocka, et al. and enjoin their criminal prosecution for the second offense of inciting to sedition. Indeed, the general rule is that criminal prosecution may not be restrained or stayed by injunction, preliminary or final. There are however exceptions, among which are: a. To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused " b. When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions " c. When there is a pre-judicial question which is sub judice d. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority e. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation f. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent " g. Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense h. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution i. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance, and j. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied.

3) A mandatory injunction cannot be issued to compel one spouse to cohabit with the other.

Let us go to MANDATORY INJUNCTION. This is rarer than a preventive preliminary

injunction. The guidelines for its issuance are also strict. PURPOSE: is to re-establish and maintain a pre-existing right rather than to create a new relationship between them.
If there is already an existing relationship which was arbitrarily interrupted by you, I can file for mandatory injunction.

Q: When may a court issue a preliminary mandatory injunction? A: 1. In cases of extreme urgency. 2. Where the right is very clear. PROSPERITY CREDIT RESOURCES, INC. vs CA, January 15,1999. The right of the complainant must be clear and unmistakable because, unlike an ordinary preliminary injunction, the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction requires the performance of a particular act or and thus tends to do more than maintain the status quo. 3. Where consideration of relative inconvenience bears strongly in complainant's favor. 4. Where there is a willful and unlawful invasion of plaintiffs right against his protest and remonstrance, the injury being a continuing one. 5. Articles 539 and 1674 of the Civil Code which expressly direct the issuance of mandatory injunction. Example: A possessor deprived of his possession by forcible entry may, within so many days, file a complaint in the proper court and ask for a writ of mandatory injunction to restore him in his possession. And also, in different cases where the defendant appealed, the lessor can ask the appellate court to issue a mandatory injunction if the appeal is frivolous or dilatory. Those are the instances when the law expressly grants the remedy. 6. Where the effect of mandatory injunction is rather to re-establish and maintain a pre-existing continuing relation between the parties recently and arbitrarily interrupted by the defendant. SEC. 4. Verified application and bond for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. - A preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order may be granted only when: a.) The application in the action or proceeding is verified and shows facts entitling the applicant to the relief demanded; and b.) where the action or proceeding is pending, a bond executed to the party or person enjoined, in an amount to be fixed by the court, to the effect that the 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. Upon approval of the requisite bond, a writ of preliminary injunction shall be issued. c.) When an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or a

temporary restraining order is included is a complaint or any initiatory pleading, the case, if filed in an multiple-sala court, shall be raffled only after notice to and in the presence of the adverse party of the person to be enjoined. In any event, such notice shall be preceded, or contemporaneously accompanied, by the service of summons, together with a copy of the complainant or initiatory pleading and the applicants affidavit and bond, upon the adverse party in the Philippines. However, where the summons could not be served personally or by substituted service despite diligent efforts, or the adverse party is a resident of the Philippines temporarily absent therefrom or is a nonresident thereof, the requirement of prior contemporaneous service of summons shall not apply. d.) The application of a temporary restraining order shall thereafter be acted upon only after all parties are heard in a summary hearing which shall be conducted within twenty four (24) hours after the sheriff's return of service and/or the records are received by the branch selected by raffle and to which the records shall be transmitted immediately. Sec. 5. Preliminary injunction not granted without notice; exception. No preliminary injunction shall be granted without hearing and prior notice to the party or person sought to be enjoined. If it shall appear from the facts shown by affidavits or by the verified application that great or irreparable injury would result to the applicantbefore the matter can be heard on notice, the court to which the application for preliminary injunction was made, may issue ex parte a temporary restraining order to be effective only for a period of Twenty (20) days from service on the party or person sought to be enjoined, except as herein provided. Within the twenty day period, the court must order said party or person to 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. However, and subject to provisions of the preceding sections, if the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury, the executive judge of a multiple sala court or the presiding judge of a single sala court may issue ex parte a temporary restraining order effective only for seventy two (72) hours from issuance but he shall immediately comply with the provisions of the next preceding sections as to service of summons and the documents to be served therewith. Thereafter, within the aforesaid seventy two (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 no case shall the total period of effectivity of the temporary restraining order exceed twenty (20) days, including the original seventy two (72) hours provided herein. In the event that the application for preliminary injunction is denied or not resolved within said period, the temporary restraining order is deemed automatically vacated. The effectivity of a temporary restraining order is 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.
However, if issued by the Court of Appeals or a member thereof the temporary restraining order shall be effective for sixty (60) day from service on the party or person sought to be enjoined. A restraining order issued by the Supreme Court or a member thereof shall be effective until further orders.

Sections 4 and 5 were taken from existing SC circulars particularly AC 20-95. Q: What are the requirements for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction? A: Letters a and b of Section 4. 1. A verified application stating the facts showing the existence of a right sought to be protected. Example: A local businessman entered into a contract with a foreign supplier of items. He became the exclusive distributor. However, another businessman is selling the same product. Does he have right to enjoin that another businessman? Yes. Because he has a right sought to be protected. 2. Bond.
Q: Can a writ of Preliminary Injunction hearing ? be issued ex parte - without

A: NO. Section 5 is very clear. No preliminary injunction to be granted without hearing and further notice to parties sought to be enjoined. There must be a hearing, presentation of evidence. Of course, in the presentation of evidence since you are only asking for an injunction, the evidence should only be a sample, because if you will present your entire evidence you are no longer asking for an injunction but a decision.

SYNDICATED MEDIA ACCESS CORP. vs CA

219 SCRA 784 HELD: While the evidence to be submitted in the hearing for the motion for preliminary injunction need not be conclusive or complete, the evidence needed may only be a sampling and intended merely to give the court an idea of justification for preliminary injunction pending the decision of the case on the merits, still such evidence must stand on admissible grounds an not one which is merely hearsay. The analogy is the same in case of petition for bail in criminal procedure.
Q: What happens if great or irreparable injury would result to the applicant before the matter can be heard, meaning, before the preliminary injunction can be acted upon. Is there a remedy temporarily?

A: YES. You ask for a temporary restraining order. That is the provisional remedy of the provisional remedy. And the grounds for injunction are found in Section 3. The ground for a temporary restraining order is that great or irreparable injury would result to the plaintiff before the matter can be heard.
So, the temporary restraining order may be issued ex parte but it has only a duration of 20 days. As stated by the SC and emphasized in the 3rd paragraph of section 5, the effectivity of the TRO is unextendible without the need of judicial declaration to that effect and no court shall have the authority to extend the same on the same grounds. There is no such thing as an extended TRO. This was taken from judicial declarations.

There seems to be AN EXCEPTION. One of them is cited in the case of

FEDERATION OF LAND REFORM FARMERS OF THE PHILS. vs. CA

246 SCRA 175 (1994).
HELD: Ordinarily, the efficacy of the TRO is non-extendible, and the courts have no discretion to extend the same considering the mandatory tenor of the rule. However, there is no reason to prevent the court from extending the 20-day period when the parties themselves ask for some extension for the maintenance of the status quo. Because of AC 20-95 which has been incorporated in sections 4 & 5, the SC created a second type of TRO, the so called 72-hour TRO. Because when you file a case, it has not yet been raffled. So under Circular 20-95, the

executive judge in a multi-sala court can issue ex parte a temporary restraining order but only good for 72 hours or three days. And then within 24 hours, the other party must be notified. There must be a special raffling within 24 hours. and then the judge must conduct a summary hearing based on the arguments only, in order to determine whether the temporary restraining order should be extended beyond 72 hours.

Two kinds of temporary restraining order: 1. Issued by an executive judge valid only for 72 hours. 2. After summary hearing, the judge will now extend and the extension should not be more than 20 days. The 72 hours is already included in the 20 days. So in effect, the extension is only for 17 days, and the total life of the TRO is 20 days. 1. Distinguish a writ a preliminary injunction from a temporary restraining order.
One requires a hearing, the other may issued ex parte. Generally, preliminary injunction is indefinite until dissolved. Normally, a preliminary injunction requires a bond, a temporary restraining can be issued w/out a bond.

2. Distinguish a TRO issued by an executive judge from a TRO issued by the other judge. The former is good for 72 hrs. and the latter for 20 days including the first 72 hrs. The former is issued before raffling and the latter after raffling. The former is ex-parte and the latter is after summary hearing. For the 72-hr TRO, the ground is extreme urgency. And the ground for the 20-day TRO is that grave and irreparable injury would result before the matter can be heard. Q: How about a TRO issued by the CA? A: You have the last paragraph, it is now effective for 60 days from service to the parties. The case of Delbros Hotel Corp. is abrogated because under the said case the lifetime of the temporary restraining order issued by the CA is only 20 days. So from 20 to 60 days. Q: How about a TRO issued by the SC ? A: This time it is indefinite. It shall effective until the case is decided. Actually, The SC can give a deadline. Sometimes after further orders, sometimes they can limit it. Q: Is there a necessity of a bond? A: A bond is required for only a preliminary injunction and as a rule there is no bond for a TRO. You look at par. a, "and the amount fix by court....." so the bond can now be imposed for a TRO when actually it is only for injunction as a rule. Take note: Generally. An injunction requires a bond unless exempted by the court. Under par. c of section 4, the last part has incorporated a portion of the Davao Light

ruling. A TRO must be served prior or contemporaneously with the summons. You can not serve the TRO ahead. It must be served prior to the summons or at least contemporaneously. Sec. 6. Grounds for objection to, or for motion of dissolution of, injunction or restraining order. - The application for injunction or restraining order may be denied, upon a showing of its insufficiency. The injunction or restraining order may also be denied ,or, if granted, may be dissolved on other grounds upon affidavits of the party or person enjoined, which may be opposed by the applicant also by affidavits. It may further be denied, or, if granted, may be dissolved if it appears hearing that although the applicant is entitled to the injunction or restraining order, the issuance or the continuance thereof, as the case may be, would cause irreparable damage to the party or person enjoined while the applicant can be fully compensated for such damages as he may suffer, and the former files a bond in an amount fixed by the court conditioned that he will pay all damages which the applicant may suffer by denial or dissolution of the injunction and restraining order. If it appears that the extent of the preliminary injunction or restraining order granted too great, it may be modified. Q: What are the grounds for the dissolution of a writ of preliminary injunction or objection to its issuance? A: That is under Sec. 6. 1. When the insufficiency of the application is shown by the application itself. The petition has no basis. 2. Upon affidavits of the party or person enjoined, which may be opposed by the applicant also by affidavits. 3. Putting up a counter-bond.
Sec. 7. Service of copies of bonds; effect of disapproval of same. The party filing a bond in accordance with the provisions of this Rule shall forthwith serve a copy of such bond on the other party, who may except to the sufficiency of the bond, or of the surety or sureties thereon. If the applicants bond is found to be insufficient in amount, or if the surety or sureties thereon fail to justify, and a bond sufficient in amount with sufficient sureties approved after justification is not filed forthwith, the injunction shall be dissolved. If the bond of the adverse party is found to be insufficient in amount, or the surety or sureties thereon fail to justify a bond sufficient in amount with sufficient sureties approved after justification is not filed forthwith, the injunction shall be granted or restored, as the case may be.

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 Section 20 of Rule 57. Q: Can you claim for damages against an injunction bond? A: YES. The same procedure for recovery of damages against the attachment bond in Section 20, Rule 57. SOME SPECIAL LAWS WHICH PROHIBIT THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION OR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. Q: What are these? A: They are the following: 1. B.P. 227, which prohibits the issuance of injunctions or TROs in labor cases; 2. P.D. 605, prohibiting courts from issuing injunctions and TROs against projects for the exploitation or development of natural resources; 3. P.D. 385, prohibiting injunction against government financing institutions, against mandatory foreclosures or against CARL; 4. R.A. 7181 as inserted by R.A. 7061, you cannot issue an injunction against the Asset Privatization Trust; 5. P.D. 1818, prohibiting injunction against public infrastructure projects and public utilities; Under this law in relation to SC circulars, no injunction also against NAPOCOR. Section 9. When final injunction granted. 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 or confirming the preliminary mandatory injunction.