1. Preliminary Injunction vs. Temporary Restraining Order vs. Status Quo Ante Order

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

The court in which the petition is filed may issue orders expediting the proceedings, and it may also grant a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction for the preservation of the rights of the parties pending such proceedings. The petition shall not interrupt the course of the principal case, unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction has been issued, enjoining the public respondent from further proceeding with the case. (Sec. 7, Rule 65)

The public respondent shall proceed with the principal case within 10 days from the filing of a petition for certiorari with a higher court or tribunal, absent a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, or upon its expiration. Failure of the public respondent to proceed with the principal case may be a ground for an administrative charge. (Sec. 7, A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC)

Nature, Purpose, and Jurisdiction

DEFINITIONS AND DIFFERENCES: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (TRO), AND STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER

Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)

It is a temporary or provisional order to maintain the subject of controversy in status quo until the hearing of an application for a preliminary injunction. (Incorporators of the Mindanao Institute v. United Church, G.R. No. 171765, 2012)

The court to which the application for preliminary injunction was made may issue a TRO, effective for 20 days from notice to the party or person sought to be enjoined, if it shall appear 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. (Sec. 5, Rule 58).

A TRO has a definite life span of 20 days. It is automatically dissolved upon the lapse of 20 days. (REGALADO, 2008 ed.)

A Writ of Preliminary Injunction has an indefinite life – it is valid until final judgment or while the action is pending. (Spouses Carpo v. Chua, G.R. Nos. 150773 & 153599, 2005)

TRO v. Injunction

Status Quo Ante Order

Status quo ante is a Latin term for "the way things were before." When an order of this nature is imposed, it is to maintain the state of things existing before the controversy. (ABS-CBN Corp. v. National Telecommunications Commission, G.R. No. 252119, 2020)

It is an interlocutory order. (Dimayuga v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174763, April 24, 2007)

The Rules of Court do not sanction the issuance of a status quo ante order (SQAO). But in cases where the SQAO is issued by a court or agency other than the Supreme Court, the SQAO is deemed to have the “nature of a temporary restraining order,” and thus must comply with the requisites for a TRO in applicable cases. Thus, it cannot exceed the 20-day term and cannot be “indefinite.” Procedural requirements of hearing and notice must also be complied with. (See Repol v. Comelec, G.R. 161418, Apr. 28, 2004; Llamzon v. PEZA Board of Inquiry, G.R. 167445, Jun. 26, 2007)

The Supreme Court, in jurisprudence, may issue SQAOs without restriction. The Supreme Court has issued a status quo order which, as the very term connotes, is merely intended to maintain the last, actual, peaceable and uncontested state of things which preceded the controversy. This was resorted to when the projected proceedings in the case made the conservation of the status quo desirable or essential, but the affected party neither sought such relief nor did the allegations in his pleading sufficiently make out a case for a temporary restraining order.

The status quo order was thus issued motu proprio or on equitable considerations. Unlike a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, a status quo order is more in the nature of a cease and desist order, since it does not direct the doing or undoing of acts as in the case of a prohibitory or mandatory injunctive relief. The further distinction is provided by the present amendment in the sense that, unlike the amended rule on restraining orders, a status quo order does not require the posting of a bond. (Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium Vol. I, 734- 35)

COMELEC may issue a status quo ante order. (Dimayuga v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174763, 2007)

Comparison of Procedure for Issuance of Preliminary Injunction, TRO, SQAO

REQUISITES

KINDS OF INJUNCTIONS; KINDS OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS

Preliminary Mandatory Injunction

The purpose of a preliminary mandatory injunction, unlike a preliminary prohibitory injunction, is to require the performance of a particular act or acts; thus, it tends to do more than maintain the status quo. Hence the plaintiff’s right must be clear and unmistakable. (Prosperity Credit Resources v. CA, G.R. No. 114170, 1999)

DURATION OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS

General Rule: A TRO is effective only for a period of 20 days from service on the party or person sought to be enjoined.

Exception: If the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparably injury, it can be issued with an effectivity of 72-hours from issuance and extendible up to 20 days after a summary hearing. (Sec. 5, Rule 58)

20-day TRO

It shall be granted if it shall appear 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 and hearing on the application for preliminary injunction.

It shall be granted by the court to which the application for preliminary injunction was made and is effective for the said period, to be counted from notice to the person or party sought to be enjoined.

Within the 20-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 the preliminary injunction should be granted; and
• Accordingly issue the corresponding order. (Sec. 5, Rule 58)

The rule against the non-extendibility of the 20-day effectivity of a temporary restraining order is absolute if issued by a Regional Trial Court. The failure of the trial court to fix a period in the temporary restraining order does not convert it to a preliminary injunction. Where there is an omission to fix the period, the 20- day period is deemed incorporated in the order. (Bacolod City Water District v. Labayen, G.R. No. 157494, 2004)

Reckoning Point of the Effectivity of a TRO

A 20-day TRO has an effectivity of only 20 days to be counted from service to the party sought to be enjoined. Likewise, within those 20 days, the court shall order the enjoined party to show why the injunction should not be granted and shall then determine whether or not the injunction should be granted. (First Sarmiento Property Holdings, Inc. v. Philippine Bank of Communications, G.R. No. 202836, 2018).

On the other hand, when there is extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury, the court shall issue a temporary restraining order effective for only 72 hours upon issuance. Within those 72 hours, the court shall conduct a summary hearing to determine if the temporary restraining order shall be extended until the application for writ of preliminary injunction can be heard. However, in no case shall the extension exceed 20 days. (Id.).

Effect If Application for Preliminary Injunction is Not Resolved Within the 20-Day Period

In the event that the application for preliminary injunction is denied or not resolved within the said period, the TRO is deemed automatically vacated. (Sec. 5, Rule 58)

Effect if No Action is Taken Within the 20-day Period

The temporary restraining order would automatically expire on the 20th day by sheer force of law, no judicial declaration to that effect being necessary. (Sec. 5, Rule 58)

Ban on Issuance of TRO or Writ of Injunction in Cases Involving Government Infrastructure Projects

No court, except the Supreme Court, shall issue any TRO, 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 discretion, to restrain, prohibit, or compel the following acts:

• Acquisition, clearance, and development of the right-of-way and/or site or location of any national government project;
• Bidding or awarding of contract/project of the national government;
• Commencement, prosecution, execution, implementation, or operation of any such contract or project;
• Termination or rescission of any such contract/project; and
• 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. (R.A. No. 8975, Sec. 3)

Any TRO, preliminary injunction, or preliminary mandatory injunction issued in violation of Sec. 3 is void and of no force and effect. (R.A. No. 8975, Sec. 4)

Other Instances When TRO May Not be Issued

A temporary restraining order may not be issued to compel the performance of an act. (Villanueva vs. CA, G.R. No. 117661, 1996).

Courts should avoid issuing a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction which would in effect dispose of the main case without trial. There would be in effect a prejudgment of the main case and a reversal of the rule on the burden of proof since it would assume the proposition which the plaintiffs were inceptively bound to prove. (Searth Commodities Corp vs. CA, G.R. No. 64220, 1992)

Procedure for Issuance of a TRO

(Administrative Circular 20-95; Rule 58, Sec. 4 and 5)

Under ordinary circumstances:

• The complaint is filed with a prayer for TRO or WPI;
• The case shall be raffled and transmission of records to selected branch.

Note: If filed in a multiple-sala court, the raffle must be done after notice to and in the presence of the adverse party or the person to be enjoined.

• The preliminary injunction may only be heard after the trial court has ordered the issuance of the usual 20-day TRO. Within that period of 20 days, the court shall order the party sought to be enjoined to show cause at a specified time and place why the injunction should not be granted. During that same period, the court shall also determine the propriety of granting the preliminary injunction and then issue the corresponding order to that effect. (FERIA, 2013, citing Lago vs. Abul Jr, A.M. No. RTJ-10-2255, 2011).

When there is grave and irreparable injury or extreme urgency:

• File a complaint with prayer for TRO or WPI;
• Executive judge decides whether to issue an ex parte 72-hour TRO;
• Applies when the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury.
• Issuance or denial of the 72-hour TRO;
• The case is raffled;
• Notice of raffle must be sent to a party. This happens even before summons;
• Raffled to a branch/sala.
• Judge must call a summary hearing within the 72 hours, before the TRO expires, to determine whether the TRO shall be extended until the application for preliminary injunction can be heard;
• Notice of hearing and notice of summons must already be given.
• If the TRO is extended to 20 days, during the 20 days, the judge shall conduct hearings to resolve whether or not to issue a writ of preliminary injunction.
• Almost akin to a trial, but not a full-blown trial.
• If not resolved or no action taken within 20 days, TRO is deemed automatically vacated; it will automatically expire by sheer force of law, no declaration to that effect necessary.