Civil Procedure

Civil Procedure A satisfied Microsoft Office User Normal JOJO 6 41 2002-01-10T08:23:00Z 2002-01-14T06:33:00Z 5 2551 14541 sc 121 29 17857 9.2720 120

Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order

There is no power the exercise of which is more delicate which requires greater caution, deliberation, and sound discretion, or (which is) more dangerous in a doubtful case than the issuing of an injunction, it is the strong arm of equity that never ought to be extended unless to cases of great injury, where courts of law cannot afford an adequate or commensurate remedy in damages. 309

1. Two (2) kinds of Preliminary Injunction

1.1 Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction which requires a person to refrain from a particular act; and

1.2 Preliminary Mandatory Injunction which requires a person to perform a particular act.

Caveat: Administrative Circular 07-99 To all judges of all lower courts: Re Exercise of Utmost Caution, Prudence, and Judiciousness in Issuance of Temporary Restraining Orders and Writs of Preliminary Injunction

2. Purpose

To prevent future injury and maintain the status quo — the last actual, peaceable, uncontested status which preceded the pending controversy. 310

The sole object of preliminary injunction is to maintain the status quo until the merits can be heard. 311

Suspension of orders is equivalent to injunction. 312

A writ of preliminary injunction, as an ancillary or preventive remedy, may only be resorted to by a litigant to protect or preserve his rights or interest and for no other purpose during the pendency of the principal action. 313

3. Definition of status quo

The status quo is the last actual peaceable uncontested status that preceded the pending controversy. 314

When parties are ordered to maintain the status quo in a TRO, but the prevailing condition at the time of its issuance is already that resulting from acts of usurpation by one of the parties, which acts of usurpation are clearly established in the pleadings, that TRO amounts to a perpetuation of the injurious effects of such acts of usurpation; such a state of things cannot clearly be allowed, for the office of the writ of injunction is to restrain the wrongdoer, not to protect him. 315

4. Independent action merely to obtain preliminary injunction is not allowed. Some substantive relief must be sought. 316

A writ of preliminary injunction, as an ancillary preventive remedy, may only be resorted to by a litigant to protect or preserve his rights or interest and for no other purpose during the pendency of the principal action. 317

5. Essential Requisites for Issuance of Preliminary Injunction

5.1 There must be right in esse or the existence of a right to be protected.

5.2 The act against which the injunction is to be directed is a violation of such right. 318

6. Rulings

6.1 A writ of preliminary injunction, as an ancillary or preventive remedy, may only be resorted to by a litigant to protect or preserve his rights or interests and for no other purpose during the pendency of the action. 319 It should only be granted if the party asking for it is clearly entitled thereto. 320

6.2 An injunction will not issue to protect a right not in esse and which may never arise or to restrain an act which does not give rise to a cause of action. There must exist an actual right. 321

7. Summary denial without adequate hearing improper

While in the issuance of preliminary injunction, the courts are given sufficient discretion to determine the necessity for the grant of the relief prayed for as it affects the respective rights of the parties, with the caveat that extreme caution be observed in the exercise of such discretion, it is with an equal degree of care and caution that courts ought to proceed in the denial of the writ. It should not just summarily issue an order of denial without an adequate hearing and judicious evaluation of the merits of the application. A perfunctory and improvident action in this regard would be a denial of procedural due process and could result in irreparable prejudice to a party. 322

8. When hearing on the merits unnecessary

xxx If the ground is the insufficiency of the complaint, the same is apparent from the complaint itself. Preliminary injunction in such a circumstance may be refused outright, with or without notice to the adverse party. In fact, under Section 6 of Rule 58, the court may also refuse an injunction on other grounds on the basis of affidavits which may have been submitted by the parties in connection with such application. xxx

xxx (Section 7 of Rule 58) merely specifies the actions that the court may take on the application for the writ if there is a hearing on the merits. It does not declare that such hearing is mandatory or prerequisite thereof. Otherwise, the courts will be forced to conduct a hearing even if from a consideration of the pleadings alone it can readily be ascertained that the movant is not entitled to the writ. xxx

It would be different xxx if there is a prima facie showing on the face of the motion or pleadings that the grant of preliminary injunction may be proper, in which case notice to the opposing party would be necessary since the grant of such writ on an ex parte proceeding is now proscribed.xxx

(If there is a prima facie showing that preliminary injunction is proper) a hearing should be conducted, since under such circumstance, only in cases of extreme urgency will the writ issue prior to a final hearing. Such requirement for prior notice and hearing underscores the necessity that a writ of preliminary injunction is to be dispensed with circumspection and both sides should be heard whenever possible. But it does not follow that such a hearing is indispensable where right at the outset the court is reasonably convinced that the writ will not lie. What was then discouraged and is now specifically prohibited is the issuance of the writ without notice and hearing. Xxx 323

9. Cases where Injunction was held improper

9.1 To restrain collection of taxes 324 except where there are special circumstances that bear the existence of irreparable injury. 325

9.2 To restrain the sale of conjugal properties where the claim can be annotated on the title as a lien such as the husband's obligation to give support. 326

9.3 To restrain a mayor proclaimed as duly elected from assuming his office. 327

9.4 Against consummated acts. 328

9.4.1 Against disposing of the case on the merits. 329

9.4.2 Writ of injunction is not proper to stop the execution of judgment where the judgment was already executed. 330

9.4.3 The CFI has no power to issue a writ of injunction against the Register of Deeds if its effect is to render nugatory a writ of execution issued by the National Labor Relations Commission. 331

9.4.4 A writ of injunction is not proper to stop the execution of judgment where the judgment was already executed. 332

But where the lower court enforced its judgment before a party against whom the execution was enforced could elevate her appeal in an injunction suit, which was instituted to prevent said execution, an independent petition for injunction in the Court of Appeals is justified. 333

9.4 Not Allowed To Transfer Possession

A court should not by means of a preliminary injunction transfer the property in litigation from the possession of one party to another where the legal title is in dispute and the party having possession asserts ownership thereto. 334 The function of injunction is to preserve the status quo ante . 335

This is more particularly applicable where the legal title is in dispute and the party having possession asserts ownership in himself. 336

10. Exceptions

10.1 Forcible entries in which the Court may issue preliminary mandatory injunction 337 and by Section 20 thereof involving leases in which the court may, on appeal, grant similar mandatory injunctive relief. The exception applies only to ejectment cases exclusively cognizable by the municipal court. 338

10.2 Property covered by Torrens Title when there is a clear finding of ownership and possession of the land or unless the subject property is covered by a Torrens Title pointing to one of the parties as the undisputed owner. 339

11. Cases where injunction prohibited

11.1 Injunction against courts or tribunals of co-equal rank prohibited. 340

11.2 Injunction orders are prohibited in the labor cases. 341

11.3 No injunction beyond prayer in complaint. 342

11.4 To enjoin the prosecution of criminal proceedings. 343

12. Cases where Criminal Prosecutions were Enjoined 344

1) For the orderly administration of justice;

2) To prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an oppresive and vindictive manner;

3) To avoid multiplicity of actions;

4) To afford adequate protection of constitutional rights;

5) In proper cases because the statute relied upon is unconstitutional or was held invalid; 345

6) Where the constitutionality of the Chinese Book Keeping Law was questioned; 346

7) Where the hearing of the libel case was enjoined by permanent injunction after the Supreme Court in a separate case found the communication alleged to be libelous as privileged and not libelous; 347

8) Where a traffic ordinance was found to be invalid; 348 and

9) Where the fiscal was restrained from further proceeding with criminal case found to be civil in nature. 349 Note: This was later on reconsidered. 350

13. Mandatory Injunction

13.1 Requisites

A mandatory injunction is granted only on a showing that:

(1) The invasion of the right is material and substantial;

(2) The right of a complainant is clear and unmistakable;

(3) There is an urgent and permanent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. 351

14. Cases where Mandatory Injunction not Granted

Mandatory injunction was not granted in the following instances:

(1) to compel cohabitation; 352

(2) in cancellation of attachment; 353 and

(3) in release of imported goods pending hearing before Commissioner of Customs. 354

(4) Injunctions are also not available 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. 355 The office of the writ of injunction is to restrain the wrongdoer 356 not to protect him. 357

15. Injunction against courts or tribunals of co-equal rank is prohibited

15.1 A court may not interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders of another court of coordinate and concurrent jurisdiction. 358

The principle applies regardless of whether it is an ordinary action or a special civil action.

15.2 No writ may be issued by the Regional Trial Court against quasi-judicial bodies of equal rank such as Social Security Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, 359 Intellectual Property Office, Commission on Elections, or Workmen's Compensation Commission. 360

15.3 Inferior courts may issue writs of preliminary injunction only in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases. The exclusive original jurisdiction of the inferior court in civil cases now includes the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases. 361

16. Statutory Prohibitions against the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction

Injunction orders are prohibited in the following cases:

16.1 Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 227 amending Art. 255 (Labor Code), no temporary or permanent injunction in cases growing out of labor dispute shall be issued by a court or other entity except as otherwise provided in Articles 281 and 264 of this Code. 362

Under Presidential Decree No. 218, it is the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) that issues an injunction in labor disputes. 363

16.2 Rep. Act No. 8735

Prohibition of issuance of temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, or preliminary mandatory injunctions against government infrastructure projects.

The law expressly repeals Presidential Decree No. 605 (prohibiting injunction involving concessions, licenses and other permits issued by public administrative office or bodies for the exploitation of natural resources) and Presidential Decree No. 1818 (prohibiting injunction in cases involving infrastructures and natural resources development and public utilities) 364 .

16.3 Presidential Decree No. 385

Prohibition to issue injunction against any government financing institution in any action taken by such institution in connection with the mandatory foreclosure where arrears amount to at least 20% of the total outstanding obligations including interest and other charges as appearing in the book of accounts and/or related records of the financial institutions concerned. 365

Presidential Decree No. 385 cannot however, be applied where the extent of the loan actually received by the borrower is still to be determined. 366

It is not also applicable to properties already foreclosed. The prohibition found in Presidential Decree No. 385 against the issuance of injunctions by lower courts, unless certain conditions are met, applies only to foreclosure proceedings initiated by government financing institutions like the Development Bank of the Philippines. 367

16.4 No restraining order or preliminary injunction against the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC)

No court in the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction against PARC or any of its duly authorized or designated agencies in any case, dispute or controversy arising from, necessary to, or in connection with the application, implementation, enforcement, or interpretation of this Act and other pertinent laws on agrarian reform. 368

16.5 Prohibition to issue injunction against the Asset Privatization Trust (APT) 369

16.6 A court should issue a writ of preliminary injunction only when the petitioner assailing a statute or administrative order has made out a case of unconstitutionality aside from showing a clear legal right to the remedy sought. 370

16.7 Presidential Decree No. 605 which prohibits courts from exercising jurisdiction to issue preliminary injunction in a case involving the issuance or approval by administrative officials of public grants in connection with the exploitation of natural resources, does not apply in a case where the complaint does not put in issue the legitimacy of the defendant's claim of being holders of mining lease contracts, but asserts that defendants had rights. 371

17. Injunctions not issued where act sought to be prevented had been committed

An injunction suit becomes moot and academic after the act sought to be enjoined had already been consummated. 372 A prohibitory injunction cannot be issued when the act sought to be enjoined has already been committed. 373

18. No injunction beyond prayer in complaint

Courts should not issue orders or injunctions beyond those prayed for in the complaint. 374

19. Temporary Restraining Order

The procedural guidelines in the issuance of TRO and Preliminary Injunction in a Multiple Sala Court are provided for in Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 20-95.

When an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order is included in a complaint or any initiatory pleading, the case, if filed in a multiple- sala court, shall proceed as follows:

(a) Verified application and bond for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order;

(b) Determination from facts shown by affidavits or by the verified application that great or irreparable injury would result to the applicant before the matter can be heard on notice.

(c) 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 for only seventy-two (72) hours from issuance;

(d) In either case, even if no TRO had been issued because there is no extreme urgency, the case shall be raffled only after notice to and in the presence of the adverse party or the person to be enjoined. In any event, such notice shall be preceded, or contemporaneously accompanied, by service of summons, together with a copy of the complaint or initiatory pleading and the applicant's affidavit and bond, upon the adverse party in the Philippines.

However, (1) where the summons could not be served personally or by substituted service despite diligent efforts, or (2) the adverse party is a resident of the Philippines temporarily absent therefrom or is a nonresident thereof, the requirement of prior or contemporaneous service of summons shall not apply.

(e) If no TRO has been issued because there is no extreme urgency, the application for 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.

(f) 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 hours provided herein.

(g) Determination within twenty days from service of the TRO on the party sought to be enjoined whether a preliminary injunction shall issue or not.

(h) 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. Another restraining order may, therefore, be issued provided it is not based on the same ground.

309 28 Am. Jur. 201, IV-A Vicente J. Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court of the Philippines 179 [1971] quoted in University of the Philippines v. Catungal, Jr. G.R. No. 121863 May 5,1997, 272 SCRA 221, 236.

310 Rivera v. Florendo, No. L-57586, October 8, 1986, 144 SCRA 643; Knecht v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 56122, November 18, 1993, 228 SCRA 1.

311 Searth Commodities Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 64200, March 31, 1992, 207 SCRA 622.

312 Philippine National Bank v. Adil, G. R. No. L-52853, November 2, 1982, 118 SCRA 110.

313 Bengzon v. Court of Appeals, No. L-82568, 31 May 1988, 161 SCRA 745.

314 Searth Commodities Corp. v. Court of Appeals, supra , note 311.

315 Buayan Cattle Co., Inc. v. Quintillan, G. R. No. L-26970, March 19, 1984, 128 SCRA 276; Villanueva v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 117661, July 15,1996, 259 SCRA 14 .

316 Bengzon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 82568, May 31, 1988, 161 SCRA 745; Cootauco v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 56565, June 16, 1988, 162 SCRA 122; Buayan v. Quintillan, supra , note 315.

317 Ibid.

318 Buayan Cattle Co. v. Quintillian, supra , note 315; Saulog v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119769 September 18, 1996, 262 SCRA 51; Arcega v. Court of Appeals G.R. No 122206 July 7, 1997, 275 SCRA 176.

319 China Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 121158, December 5, 1996, 265 SCRA 327.

320 Climaco v. Macadaeg, 114 Phil. 870 [1962]; Subido v. Gopengco, G. R. No. 25618, March 28, 1969, 27 SCRA 455; Police Commission v. Bello, G. R. Nos. 29959-60, January 30, 1971, 37 SCRA 230; Capitol Medical Center, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 82499, Oct. 13, 1989, 178 SCRA 493.

321 Republic of the Philippines v. Villarama G.R. No. 117733, September 5, 1997, 278 SCRA 736; Buayan v. Quintillan, supra , note 315.

322 Bataclan v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 78148, July 31, 1989, 175 SCRA 764.

323 Valley Trading Co., Inc. v. Court of First Instance, G.R. No. 49529, 31 March 1989, 171 SCRA 501.

324 Ibid.

325 Churchill & Tait v. Rafferty, 32 Phil. 580 [1915].

326 Saavedra v. Estrada 56 Phil.33 [1931].

327 Cereno v. Dictado, No. L-81550, April 15, 1988, 160 SCRA 759.

328 Philippine National Bank v. Adil, supra , note 312.

329 Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) v. Florendo, G. R. No. 48603, September 29, 1989, 178 SCRA 76; Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership v. Court of Appeals, No. L-79128, June 16, 1988, 162 SCRA 165.

330 Meneses v. Dinglasan, 81 Phil. 470 [1948].

331 Ambrosio v. Salvador, No. L-47651, December 11, 1978, 87 SCRA 217.

332 Meneses v. Dinglasan, supra , note 330.

333 Manila Surety and Fidelity v. Teodoro, G. R. No. 20530, June 29, 1967, 20 SCRA 463.

334 Toyota Motors Philippines Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 102881, Dec. 7, 1992, 216 SCRA 236.

335 Knecht v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 56122, November 18, 1993, 228 SCRA 1.

336 Gordillo and Martinez v. Del Rosario, 39 Phil. 829 [1919].

337 Rules of Court, Rule 70, Sec. 15.

338 Ramos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. 81354, July 26, 1988, 163 SCRA 583.

339 GSIS v. Florendo, supra , note 329; Cagayan de Oro City Landless Residents Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 106043, March 4, 1996, 254 SCRA 229.

340 Roldan, Jr. v. Arca, G. R. No. 25434, July 25, 1975, 65 SCRA 336.

341 Associated Labor Union (AKU-TUCP) v. Borromeo, No. L-75736, September 29, 1988, 166 SCRA 99; Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa v. Sarmiento , No. L-47853, November 16, 1984, 133 SCRA 220.

342 The Chief of Staff, AFP v. Guadiz, Jr., No. L-35007, December 39, 1980, 101 SCRA 827.

343 Romero v. The Chief of Staff, AFP, G. R. No. 84076, February 20, 1989, 170 SCRA 108; Reyes v. Camilon, G. R. No. 46198, December 20, 1990, 192 SCRA 445.

344 Brocka v. Enrile, G. R. Nos. 69863-65, December 10, 1990, 192 SCRA 182.

345 Justiniani v. Castillo, No. L-41114, June 21, 1988, 162 SCRA 378.

346 Yu Cong Eng v. Trinidad, 47 Phil. 385 [1925].

347 Ang v. Castro, G. R. No. L-66371, May 15, 1985, 136 SCRA 453; Justiniani v. Castillo, supra , note 345.

348 Primicias v. Municipality of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, No. L-26702, October 18, 1979, 93 SCRA 462.

349 Guingona v. City Fiscal of Manila, No. L-60033, April 4, 1984, 128 SCRA 577.

350 Guingona v. City Fiscal of Manila, Reconsidered, Resolution, 137 SCRA 597.

351 Pelejo v. Court of Appeals, No. L-60800, October 18, 1982, 117 SCRA 666; Rivera v. Florendo, No. L-60066, July 31, 1986, 143 SCRA 278.

352 Arroyo v. Vasquez, 42 Phil. 54 [1921].

353 Levy Hermanos v. Lacson, 71 Phil. 94 [1940].

354 Commissioner of Customs v. Cloribel, G. R. No. 20266, January 31, 1967, 19 SCRA 234.

355 Emilia v. Bado, G. R. No. 23685, April 25, 1968, 23 SCRA 183; Pio v. Marcos, G. R. No. 27849, April 30, 1974, 56 SCRA 726.

356 Calo v. Roldan, supra , note 284.

357 Buayan Cattle v. Quintillian, supra , note 315.

358 Roldan, Jr. v. Arca, G. R. No. 25434, July 25, 1975 65 SCRA 336; Abiera vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 26294, May 31, 1972, 45 SCRA 314.

359 Philippine Pacific Fishing Co., Inc. v. Luna, No. L-59070, March 15, 1982, 112 SCRA 604.

360 Nocnoc v. Vera, No. L-37737, February 27, 1979, 88 SCRA 529.

361 BP Blg. 129, Sec. 33; Vide Refer to Rules of Court, Rule 70, Sec. 15.

362 Associated Labor Union (ALU-TUCP) v. Borromeo, supra , note 341.

363 Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa v. Sarmiento, supra , note 341.

364 National Power Corporation v. Vera, G.R. No. 83558, 27 Feb. 1989, 170 SCRA 721.

365 Filipinas Marble Corporation v. Intermediate Appellate Court, No. L-68010, May 30, 1986, 142 SCRA 180.

366 Filipinas Marble Corporation v. Intermediate Appellate Court, ibid. ; Government Service Insurance System v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 42278, January 20, 1989, 169 SCRA 244.

367 Searth Commodities Corporation v. Court of Appeals, supra , note 311; Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals G.R. No.107943, Feb. 3, 2000.

368 Sec. 55, CARP Law.

369 Sec. 31-A, Proclamation No. 50-A; Mantruste System v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 86540-41, November 6, 1989, 179 SCRA 136.

370 Tablarin v. Gutierrez, No. L-78164, July 31, 1987, 152 SCRA 730.

371 D.C. Crystal, Inc. v. Laya, G.R. No. 53597, February 28, 1989, 170 SCRA 734.

372 Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank v. National Mines and Allied Workers Union (NAMAWU-MIF), No. L-50407, August 19, 1982, 115 SCRA 873; Romulo v. Y�iguez, No. L-71908, February 4, 1986, 141 SCRA 263; Rivera v. Florendo, No. L-57586, October 8, 1986, 144 SCRA 658.

373 Philippine National Bank v. Adil, supra , note 312; Ramos, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 80908-09, May 24, 1989, 173 SCRA 550.

374 The Chief of Staff, AFP v. Guadiz, Jr., supra , note 342.