RULE 58 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

I. DEFINITION
Temporary restraining order (sec.5,rule 58)
Prior notice is not mandatory , is issued upon a verified application showing great or irreparable injury would
result to the applicant before the matter can be heard on notice. Thus preserving the status quo until
the hearing of the application for preliminary injunction.
It only has a limited life of 20 days from date of issue, TRO is deemed automatically vacated if before
the expiration of the 20th day period, the application for PI is denied.
May be issued ex parte
Preliminary Injunction:
Preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment
or final order (not final and executory), 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 a preliminary mandatory injunction (sec.1, Rule 58).

(Limitless vs Potentials, April 24 2007)

Preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy that a party may resort to in order to preserve and protect
certain rights and interest during the pendency of an action; the status quo should be existing ante litem
motam, or at the time of the filing of the case preliminary injunction should not establish new
relations between the parties, but merely maintain or re-establish, the pre-existing relationship between
them.

To be entitled to an injunctive writ, the petitioner has the burden to

establish the following requisites:
1. a right in esse or a clear and unmistakable right to be protected;
2. a violation of that right
3. that there is an urgent and permanent act and urgent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.

Absence of a showing that the petitioners have an urgent and paramount need for a writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction to prevent irreparable damage, they are not entitled to such writ (China Banking
vs Co, 565 SCRA 600).

status quo refers to the last actual, peaceful, and uncontested status that preceded the actual controversy.

A preliminary injunction or TRO may be granted only when, among other things:
the applicant files with the court, where the action 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 such party or
person all damages which he may sustain by reason of the injunction or TRO if the court should finally
decide that the applicant was not entitled thereto.

China Banking vs Co, 565 SCRA 600

It is settled that the grant of a preliminary mandatory injunction rests on the sound discretion of the
court. Preliminary injunction is merely a provisional remedy, adjunct to the main case subject to the
latter's outcome. It is not a cause of action in itself preliminary injunction is merely a provisional
remedy, adjunct to the main case subject to the latter's outcome. It is not a cause of action in itself.

Final Injunction
An injunction is preliminary when it refers to the writ secured before the finality of the judgment (sec.1
rule 58, RC).
 It is final when it is issued as a judgment making the injunction permanent. It perpetually restrains a
person from the continuance or commission of an act and confirms the previous preliminary injunction
(sec.9, Rule 58, RC).

Preventive Injunction
Injunction is prohibitory when its purpose is to prevent a person from the performance of a particular
act.
The act has not yet been performed, the status quo is preserved and
restored

Mandatory Injunction
It is mandatory when its purpose is to require a person to perform a particular act
The act has already been performed and this act has violated the rights of another
It does not preserve the status quo but restores it
China banking vs Co, Dec. 6, 2006
Since a preliminary mandatory injunction commands the performance of an act, it does not preserve the
status quo and is thus more cautiously regarded than a mere prohibitive injunction.
Semirara Coal Corporation vs HGL Development Corporation, 510 SCRA 479
A lawful possessor is entitled to be respected in his possession and any disturbance of possession is a ground
for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to restore the possession.

II. ORIGIN
An injunction is a special remedy contained in the new code of civil procedure and adopted from
American and English law of procedure, and the accepted American doctrine limiting its use to cases
where there is no other adequate remedy, and otherwise controlling the issue thereof, must be deemed to
limit its use in like manner in this jurisdiction (Devesa vs Arbes, 13 Phil 273).

Writs not available for recovery of property when title is not established
Injunctions, as a rule, will not be granted to take property out of the possession or control of one party
and place it into that of another whose title has not clearly been established.

III. PURPOSE:
1. the objective of a writ of preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the
case can be fully heard; status quo is the last actual, peaceable and uncontested situation which
precedes a controversy (preysler jr vs CA 494 SCRA 547).

2. the purpose of preliminary injunction is to prevent threatened or continuous irremediable injury to

some of the parties before their claims can be thoroughly studied and adjudicated (limitless vs CA,
522 SCRA 70).

IV. SCOPE
Acts already performed cannot be prohibited except specifically stated in the order if a writ of
preliminary injunction has been issued against a particular person, enjoining him, for example, from
performing any act whatever that may tend to close and obstruct an irrigation ditch by preventing the
passage of the water, when the said ditch was already closed, it cannot be understood that the person, against
whom the prohibitory order was issued, willfully disregarded and disobeyed the said judicial writ by not
removing the obstacle that prevented the flow of the water, because this last operation is not covered by the
writ of injunction (mantile vs Cajucom, 19 Phil 563).

Injunction will not lie where the acts sought to be enjoined have already been accomplished or
consummated a writ of preliminary injunction will not issue if the act sought to be enjoined is a fait
accompli.
V. DISTINGUISHED FROM MANDAMUS
Mandamus is a special civil action seeking a judgment commanding a tribunal, board, officer or person
to perform a ministerial duty required to be performed by law (sec.3, Rule 65, RC).
Mandatory injunction is directed to a party litigant, not to a tribunal and is issued to require a party to
perform a particular act to restore the status quo.

VI. DISTINGUISHED FROM PROHIBITION

> Prohibition is a special civil action seeking a judgment commanding a tribunal, corporation, board, or
officer to desist from further proceeding in the action because it has no jurisdiction, is acting in excess of
jurisdiction or has gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction (Sec.2, rule 65, RC)

> Prohibitory injunction is a provisional remedy that is directed to a litigant, not a tribunal and is issued to
require said party to refrain from a particular act (sec.1 Rule 58, RC).

Feliciano vs Alipio 94 Phil 621

Action for declaratory relief, considered as one for prohibition

Although the petitioner filed against public officers is for declaratory relief, yet if it prays also for the
issuance of a permanent injunction from carrying out the provisions of a Department Circular on grounds of
unconstitutionality, the same is equivalent to an action for prohibition and the court should not dismiss the
petition but should proceed with the case considering the action as one for prohibition.

VII. WHEN IS MANDATORY INJUNCTION ISSUED (sec.3, Rule 58)

Mandatory injunction is issued when it is established:
a. that the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists of:
requiring the performance of an act or acts for limited period or perpetually
b. that the commission, continuance or non- performance of the act or acts complained during the
litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant;
c. that a party, court, agency or a person is:

> doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or 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.

VIII. WHEN IS A TRO ISSUED (sec.5, Rule 57)

TRO may issue ex parte if by the facts shown by the affidavits or by the verified application that:
1. a great or irreparable injury would result to the applicant before the matter can be heard on notice
under such ground,
TRO issued is only effective for a period of 20 dyas from issuance and the TRO shall be deemed
automatically vacated if the application for preliminary injunction is denied or not resolved within such
period.
The TRO may be extended provided there is a judicial declaration to that effect
The court has no authority to extend or renew the TRO on the same ground for which it was issued
If issued by the Court of Appeals, it shall be valid and effective for 60 days from service on the party or
person sought to be enjoined.
If issued by the SC, effective until further orders.

2. if the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer grave
injustice and irreparable injury may be issued ex parte by the executive judge
of a multiple-sala court
valid only for 72 hours from issuance but shall comply with the service of summons and the documents
to be served on the party sought to be enjoined
 within the 72hrs the judge before whom the case is pending shall summary hearing to determine
whether the TRO shall be extended until the application for Preliminary injunction can be heard.
In no case shall the total period of effectivity of the TRO exceed 20 days, including the original 72 hrs

The trial court, the CA, the SB, or the CTA that issued a writ of preliminary injunction against a lower
court, board, officer, or quasi-judicial agency shall decide the main case or petition within 6 months
from the issuance of the writ.

Kinds of TRO
1. 20- day TRO
Issued by the court to which the application for Preliminary injunction was made
May be issued ex parte showing by affidavits that great or irreparable injury would result to the
applicant before the matter can be heard on notice
The 20 day period shall start from service on the party sought to be enjoined
Extendible without need of any judicial declaration provided that the ground for extension shall not be
the same with the first because no court shall have the authority to extend or renew the same on the
same ground for which it was issued.
On the 20th day the TRO shall expire; or it shall expire automatically if the application for preliminary
injunction is denied or not resolved within the 20 day period.
2. 72 hrs TRO
Issued by an EXECUTIVE judge of a multiple-sala court; or the PRESIDING judge of a single-sala
court
Grounds for issuance: if the matter is of EXTREME URGENCY and the applicant will suffer grave
injustice and irreparable injury may also be issued ex parte
Effectivity: The 72hr period shall commence from the issuance but shall immediately comply with the
service of summons and documents to be served.
Extendible without need of judicial declaration but the extension shall not exceed 20 days, including the
original 72 hr; provided that the ground for the extension shall not be the same ground for which it was
issued.
3. 60 days TRO
Issued by the Court of Appeals or member thereof
The 60 day TRO shall be effective from service on the party or person sought to be enjoined
Non-extendible; no judicial declaration that it has expired is necessary

4. Indefinite TRO
> issued by the Supreme Court or member thereof
> shall be effective until further orders has the authority to issue TROs on cases involving
national government infrastructure projects (SC Admin Circular No. 11-2000)

Requisites for preliminary injunctive relief:

Petitioner must establish the following requisites to be entitled to a writ of preliminary injunction:
1. the right sought to be protected is material and substantial
2. right of the complainant is clear and unmistakable
3. there is a violation of such right
4. there is an urgent and permanent necessity for the writ of to prevent serious damage

IX. IRREPARABLE INJURY; DEFINE

It does not have reference to the amount of damages that may be caused but rather to the difficulty of
measuring the damages inflicted. If full compensation can be obtained by way of damages, equity will
not apply the remedy of injunction.
X. .STATUS QUO
Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction is committed if the writ of
preliminary injunction is issued restoring the situation prior to the status quo, in effect, the disposing the
main issue without trial on the merits.
The status quo usually preserved by a preliminary injunction is the last actual, peaceable and
uncontested status which preceded the actual controversy. It is the state of affairs which is existing at
the time of the filing of the case (OWWA vs Chavez, 524 SCRA 451)

A preliminary writ of injunction is merely temporary, subject to the final disposition of the principal
action. the issuance thereof is within the discretion of the court and is generally not interfered with
except in cases of manifest abuse (Dungog vs CA, 408 SCRA 267)

XI. WHO MAY GRANT INJUNCTION

Sec.2, Rule 58. Who may grant

preliminary injunction
A preliminary injunction may be granted by:
1. the court where the action or proceeding is pending
2. it may be issued by the CA, or the SC if the action or proceeding is pending therein;

XII. AGAINST WHOM IS INJUNCTION CANNOT BE ISSUED

1.Senate Blue Ribbon Committee vs Majaducan, 407 SCRA 356

> Where the senate in conduct legislative inquiries in aid of legislation, and persons were subpoenaed
and invited thereto, the latter cannot go to the court of justice because it has no authority to prohibit
(issue a writ of injunction) the committee from requiring that person from appearing and testifying
before it; otherwise it will be inconsistent with the doctrine of separation of powers as the same is an
encroachment to ones prerogatives. Therefore, writ of injunction shall not issue against such
constitutional body.

2. Mabayo Farms vs CA, 386 SCRA 110

As an ancillary or preventive remedy, a writ of preliminary injunction may therefore be resorted to by a
party to protect or preserve his rights and for no other purpose during the pendency of the principal
action. Its object is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard. It is not a cause
of action in itself but merely a provisional remedy, an adjunct to a main suit. Thus, a person who is not a
party in the main suit, like private respondent in the instant case, cannot be bound by an ancillary writ,
such as the writ of preliminary injunction issued against the defendants in Civil Case No. 6695. He
cannot be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger. Therefore writ injunction shall not
issue against a person who is not a party in the main action.

3. Southern Cross Cement vs PCMC, July 8, 2004

The court cannot grant a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the collection of taxes, a preemptory
judicial act which is frowned upon, unless there is a statutory basis for it. In that regard, Section 218 of
the Tax Reform Act of 1997 prohibits any court from granting an injunction to restrain the collection of
any national internal revenue tax, fee or charge imposed by the internal revenue code. Therefore, a writ
of attachment shall not issue to enjoin tax collection.

4. Delta ventures vs Cabato, march 9, 2000

Cases involving labor dispute, the RTC being co-equal body of the NLRC, has no jurisdiction to issue
any restraining order or injunction to enjoin the execution of any decision of the NLRC. Therefore, a
writ of attachment shall not issue against labor disputes.
5. Traders Royal bank vs IAC
 No court has the power to interfere by injunction with the judgments or decrees of a concurrent or
coordinate jurisdiction having equal power to grant the injunctive relief sought by injunction, except in
cases where third-party claimant is involved, in order to prevent one court from nullifying the judgment
or process of another court of the same rank or category, a power which devolves upon the proper
appellate court. The purpose of the rule is to avoid conflict of power between different courts of
coordinate jurisdiction.. Therefore, a writ of injunction shall not issue against a judgment of a court
except in cases of third party claimant.

6. Executive Secretary vs CA, GR no. 131719

To be entitled to a preliminary injunction to enjoin the enforcement of a law assailed to be
unconstitutional, the party must establish that
1. it will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief and
2. must demonstrate that it is likely to succeed on the merits, or
3. that there are sufficiently serious questions going to the merits and the balance of hardships
tips decidedly in its favor.
Before the plaintiff may be entitled to injunction against future enforcement, he is burdened to show
some substantial hardship.
Therefore, writ of injunction shall not issue to enjoin the enforcement of a law unless it can be
established with substantial hardship on the part of the plaintiff that the law assailed is
unconstitutional.

7. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas vs Antonio-Valenzuela Oct. 2, 2009

As such, a writ of preliminary injunction may be issued only upon clear showing of an actual existing
right to be protected during the pendency of the principal action. The twin requirements of a valid
injunction are the existence of a right and its actual or threatened violations. Thus, to be entitled to an
injunctive writ, the right to be protected and the violation against that right must be shown. Thus, the
issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction must have basis in and be in accordance with law. All
told, while the grant or denial of an injunction generally rests on the sound discretion of the lower court,
this Court may and should intervene in a clear case of abuse. (submission of ROEs)

XIII. INJUNCTION ON GOVERNMENT PROJECTS

a.SC Administrative Circular no. 11-2000

> SEC. 3.Prohibition on the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Orders, Preliminary Injunctions and
Preliminary Mandatory Injunctions.
No court, except the Supreme Court, shall issue any temporary restraining order,
preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction against the government, or any of its
subdivisions, officials or any person or entity, whether public or private, acting under the
government's direction, to restrain, prohibit or compel the following acts:
a. Acquisition, clearance and development of the right-of-way and/or site or location of
any national government project;
b. Bidding or awarding of contract/project of the national government as defined under
Section 2 hereof;
c. Commencement, prosecution, execution, implementation, operation of any such
contract or project;
d. Termination or rescission of any such contract/project; and
e. The undertaking or authorization of any other lawful activity necessary for such
contract/project. "
 This prohibition shall apply in all cases, disputes or controversies instituted by a private party, including
but not limited to cases filed by bidders or those claiming to have rights through such bidders involving
such contract/project.

o EXCEPTION: This prohibition shall not apply when the matter is of extreme urgency
involving constitutional issue, such that unless a temporary restraining order is issued,
grave injustice and irreparable injury will arise. The applicant shall file a bond, in an amount
to be fixed by the court, which bond shall accrue in favor of the government if the court should
finally decide that the applicant was not entitled to the relief sought,

If after due hearing the court finds that the award of the contract is null and void, the court may, if
appropriate under the circumstances, award the contract to the qualified and winning bidder or order a
rebidding of the same, without prejudice to any liability that the guilty party may incur under existing
laws.

SEC. 4.Nullity of Writs and Orders.- Any temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction or
preliminary mandatory injunction issued in violation of Section 3 hereof is void and of no force and
effect.

SEC. 5.Designation of Regional Trial Courts.-The Supreme Court may designate regional trial
courts to act as commissioners with the sole function of receiving facts of the case involving
acquisition clearance and development of right-of-way for government infrastructure projects. The
designated regional trial court shall within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the referral,
forward its findings of facts to the Supreme Court for appropriate action.

Republic vs Nolasco, April 27, 2005

General Rule:
Republic Act No. 8975 definitively enjoins all courts, except the Supreme Court, from
issuing any temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or preliminary mandatory injunction
against the government, or any of its subdivisions, officials or any person or entity to restrain, prohibit
or compel the bidding or awarding of a contract or project of the national government, precisely the
situation that obtains in this case with respect to the Agno River Project.
EXCEPTION:
1. The only exception would be if the matter is of extreme urgency involving a constitutional issue,
such that unless the temporary restraining order is issued, grave injustice and irreparable injury will
arise. The TRO issued by the RTC failed to take into consideration said law. Neither did it advert to
any extreme urgency involving a constitutional issue, as required by the statute. The law ordains that
such TRO is void, and the judge who issues such order should suffer the penalty of suspension of at
least sixty (60) days without pay.
2. Case of Hernandez vs NAPOCOR -
An injunctive relief may be issued by any other court who has jurisdiction over the subject matter
whenever national projects of the government shall be detrimental to ones right to life.

Proviso: Unquestionably, the power to issue injunctive writs against the implementation of any
government infrastructure project is exclusively lodged with this Court (SC), pursuant to Section 3 of
Rep. Act No. 8975. But while lower courts are proscribed thereunder from issuing restraining orders
and/or writs of preliminary injunction to stop such projects, the proscription does not mean that such
courts are likewise bereft of authority to take cognizance of the issue/issues raised in the principal action,
as long as such action and the relief sought are within their jurisdiction.

Hernandez vs NAPOCOR, March 23, 2006

The prohibition (under RA 8975) is not meant to be a blanket prohibition as to disregard the fundamental
right to health, safety and well-being of a community guaranteed by the fundamental law of the land.
Therefore, an injunctive relief may be issued by any other court who has jurisdiction community
guaranteed by the fundamental law of the land. Therefore, an injunctive relief may be issued by any
 other court who has jurisdiction over the subject matter whenever national government projects shall
be detrimental to ones right to life.

XIV. TIME TO GRANT INJUNCTION

At any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order (sec.1 Rule 58)

XV. SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT, APPLICATION AND OTHER REQUISITES

An injunction or TRO may be granted only when:
1. the application for the same is VERIFIED
2. the application shows that the applicant is entitled to the relief sought
3. unless exempted by the court, the applicant shall execute a bond to the party enjoined, in an amount
fixed by the court. The filing of the bond is conditioned upon to pay the party enjoined all damages
that he may sustained by reason of the injunction or the TRO if the court should finally decide that
the applicant is not entitled thereto.
4. Upon approval of the requisite bond, a writ of preliminary injunction shall be issued

Land Bank of the Philippines vs Continental Watchman 420 SCRA 624

The exercise of sound judicial discretion by the trial court in injunctive matters must not be interfered
with except when there is manifest abuse.

Republic vs Evangelista 466 SCRA 544

At the hearing for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, mere prima facie evidence is needed
to establish the applicants rights or interests in the subject matter of the main action the applicant is
required only to show that he has an ostensible right to the final relief prayed for in his complaint.

XV. Injunction Bond (sec.4 & 7)

Sec.4. a preliminary injunction or TRO shall not issue unless the applicant shall execute a bond to the
party or person enjoined, in an amount 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 TRO if the court
should finally decide that the applicant was not entitled thereto.

Limitless potential vs CA (supra)

Issue: Is it necessary for an enjoined party who sustained damages by reason of the injunction to
prove malice or lack of good faith in the issuance thereof before he can recover damages against the
injunction bond?

No. Malice or lack of good faith in the issuance of the injunction is not an element of recovery of the
injunction bond. To require otherwise would make the filing of a bond a useless formality. The
dissolution of the injunction, even if the injunction was obtained in good faith, amounts to would make
the filing of a bond a useless formality. The dissolution of the injunction, even if the injunction was
obtained in good faith, amounts to the determination that the injunction is wrongfully obtained and a
right of action on the injunction bond immediately accrues.

Sec.7. Service of copies of bonds; effect of disapproval

The party filing a bond shall forthwith serve a copy of such bond on the other party.

When injunction shall be dissolved: applicants bond is found to be insufficient in amount if the surety or
sureties fails to justify a bond sufficient in amount with sufficient sureties approved after justification
was not filed.
When injunction shall be restored or granted, as the case may be: if the bond of the adverse party is
found to be insufficient in amount the surety or sureties thereon fail to justify a bond sufficient in
amount with sufficient sureties approved after justification is not filed forthwith

XVI. OBJECTIONS TO ISSUANCE (sec.6, Rule 58)

The application for injunction or restraining order may be denied upon:
1. showing of its insufficiency
 2. on other grounds
3. if it appears after hearing that it would cause irreparable damage to the party or person enjoined
4. the extent of the order is too great

XVII. WHEN IS FINAL INJUNCTION ISSUED

Sec.9. When final injunction granted
o 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.

XVIII. INTERIM RULES ON INTRA-CORPORATE CONTROVERSIES

SECTION 1. (a) Cases covered. These Rules shall govern the procedure to be observed in civil cases
involving the following:
1. Devices or schemes employed by, or any act of, the board of directors, business associates,
officers or partners, amounting to fraud or misrepresentation which may be detrimental to
the interest of the public and/or of the stockholders, partners, or members of any
corporation, partnership, or association;
2. Controversies arising out of intra-corporate, partnership, or association relations, between
and among stockholders, members, or associates; and between, any or all of them and the
corporation, partnership, or association of which they are stockholders, members, or
associates, respectively;
3. Controversies in the election or appointment of directors, trustees, officers, or managers of
corporations, partnerships, or associations;
4. Derivative suits; and
5. Inspection of corporate books.