C. Preliminary Injunction (Rule 58)

Preliminary Injunction

It is an order granted at any stage of an action or proceeding before the judgment or final order, requiring a party or a court, agency or person to:

• Refrain from a particular act or acts (prohibitory injunction); or
• Perform a particular act or acts (mandatory injunction). (Sec. 1, Rule 58; Dungog v. CA, G.R. Nos. 77850-51, 1988)

A preliminary injunction is a preventive remedy whose only mission is to prevent threatened wrong, further injury, and irreparable harm or injustice until the rights of the parties can be settled. (Nerwin Industries Corp v. PNOC-Energy Dev’t Corp., G.R. No. 167057, 2012)

A preliminary mandatory injunction is more cautiously regarded than a mere prohibitive injunction since, more than its function of preserving the status quo between the parties, it also commands the performance of an act. Thus, the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction is justified only in a clear case, free from doubt or dispute. (Ngo v Allied Banking Corp, G.R. No. 177420, 2010)

Preservation of Status Quo – Purpose of Injunctive Writ

The status quo is the last, actual, peaceful, and uncontested situation (which precedes a controversy, and its preservation is the office of an injunctive writ. (Pineda v. CA, G.R. No. 181643, Nov. 17, 2010) It usually refers to the status of the parties immediately before the filing of the complaint.

Injunction is resorted to only when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences which cannot be remedied under any standard compensation. The sole objective of a writ of preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard fully. (Unilever v CA, G.R. No. 119280, 2006)

Persons Bound by Writ; Relations Created

A preliminary injunction is merely a provisional remedy, an adjunct to a main suit; hence, a person who is not a party in the main suit cannot be bound by the writ. (Mabayo Farms v. CA, G.R. No. 140058, 2002)

A preliminary injunction should not establish new relations between the parties but merely maintain or re-establish the pre-existing relationship between them. (Bustamante v. CA, G.R. No. 126371, 2002)

Action for Injunction v. Writ of Preliminary Injunction

The main action for injunction is distinct from the provisional or ancillary remedy of preliminary injunction which cannot exist except only as part or an incident of an independent action or proceeding. In an action for injunction, the auxiliary remedy of preliminary of injunction, whether prohibitory or mandatory, may issue. (Urbanes v. CA, G.R. No. 117964, 2001)

The main action for injunction seeks a judgment embodying a final injunction, which is distinct from, and should not be confused with, the provisional remedy of preliminary injunction, the sole object of which is to preserve the status quo until the merits are heard. (Id.).

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. (Sec. 2, Rule 58).

“Clear and Unmistakable Right”

One clearly founded in or granted by law or is enforceable as a matter of law. (Australian Professional Realty v. Municipality of Padre Garcia, G.R. No. 183367, 2012)

While a clear showing of the plaintiff’s right is necessary, its existence need not be conclusively established. The evidence need not be complete but merely a ‘sampling’ intended merely toggle the court an idea of the justification for the preliminary injunction, pending the decision of the case on the merits. Thus, the plaintiff is only required to show that it has the ostensible right to the final relief prayed for in the complaint.” (Los Banos Rural Bank v. Africa, G.R. No. 143994, 2002)

“Irreparable Injury”

Injury is considered irreparable if it is of such constant and frequent recurrence that no fair or reasonable redress can be had therefore in court or law or where there is no standard by which their amount can be measured with reasonable accuracy. (Social Security Commission v. Bayona, G.R. No. L-13555, 1962)

Respondents assert that foreclosure of their property may cause irreparable damage, thus justifying the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction. The SC held that foreclosure of mortgaged property is not an irreparable damage that will merit for the debtormortgagor the extraordinary provisional remedy of preliminary injunction as “all is not lost for defaulting mortgagors whose properties were foreclosed by creditors-mortgagees.” The respondents will not be deprived outrightly of their property, given the right of redemption granted to them under the law. Moreover, in extrajudicial foreclosures, mortgagors have the right to receive any surplus in the selling price. Thus, if the mortgagee is retaining more of the proceeds of the sale than he is entitled to, this fact alone will not affect the validity of the sale but will give the mortgagor a cause of action to recover such surplus. (Solid Builders v. China Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 179665, 2013).

A preliminary injunction is intended to prevent irreparable injury to the plaintiff, that possibility should be clearly established, if only provisionally, to justify the restraint of the act complained against. The evidence submitted at the hearing on the motion need not be conclusive and complete.

However, the damage must not be susceptible of mathematical computation. Damages are irreparable within the meaning of the rule relative to the issuance of injunction where there is no standard by which their amount can be measured with reasonable accuracy. 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. (Social Security Commission v. Bayona, G.R. No. L-13555, 1962)

Injury is considered irreparable if it is of such constant and frequent recurrence that no fair or reasonable redress can be had therefore in court or law or where there is no standard by which their amount can be measured with reasonable accuracy. (Ollendorff v. Abrahamson, G.R. No. 13228, 1918).

Mere prima facie evidence is needed to establish the applicant’s rights or interests in the subject matter of the main action. (Republic v. Evangelista, G.R. No. 156015, 2005; Lukang vs Pagbilao Development Corp G.R. No. 195374, 2014)

Procedure For Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction and TRO

• A verified application showing facts entitling the applicant to the relief demanded shall be filed with the court where the action is pending. (Sec. 4(a), Rule 58)

Application must be verified; absence of verification makes the application or petition patently insufficient both in form and in substance. (Rivera v. Mirasol., A.M. No. RTJ-04-1885, 2004)

The Sandiganbayan cannot validly issue a TRO on the basis of a communication (letter) which is not verified. (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 89553, 1993)

• If the application is included in a complaint or initiatory pleading filed before a single-sala court, notice of the application must be served to the adverse party. If the application is included in a complaint or initiatory pleading filed before multiplesala court, the application shall be raffled only after notice and in the presence of the adverse party. (Sec. 4 (c), Rule 58)

No preliminary injunction shall be granted without hearing and prior notice to the party or person sought to be enjoined. (Sec. 5, Rule 58)

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 affidavits upon the adverse party in the Philippines. But the contemporaneous service of summons shall not apply when:

• The summons could not be served personally or by substituted service despite diligent efforts;
• Adverse party is a resident of the Philippines temporarily absent therefrom; or
• Adverse party is a non-resident. (Sec. 4(c), Rule 58)

However, the court may issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) to be effective only for a period of 20 days from service on the party or person sought to be enjoined if great or irreparable injury would result to the applicant as shown by affidavits or by the verified petition before the matter can be heard on notice. (Sec. 5, Rule 58.).

A summary hearing must be conducted in an application for a TRO which must be held within 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. 4(d), Rule 58)

Within the said 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 or not the preliminary injunction shall be granted, and accordingly issue the corresponding order. (Sec. 5, Rule 58)

Nonetheless, the executive judge of a multiple-sala court or the presiding judge of a single-sala court may issue an ex parte TRO effective for 72 hours from issuance if:

• The matter is of extreme urgency; and
• The applicant will suffer grave injustice or irreparable injury.

Thereafter, the application for TRO shall be acted upon also after a summary hearing to determine whether the TRO shall be extended, which must not exceed 20 days, including the 72 hours initially provided. (Secs. 4 (d) and 5, Rule 58).

After prior notice, a hearing shall be conducted on whether the applicant is entitled to the writ of preliminary injunction. Unless otherwise exempted, the applicant shall file a bond executed to the party 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. (Sec. 4(b), Rule 58).

In the event that the application for preliminary injunction is denied or not resolved within the 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. (Sec. 5, Rule 58).

Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction

The purpose of a preliminary prohibitory injunction is to preserve the status quo of the things subject of the action or the relation between the parties, in order to protect the rights of the plaintiff respecting the subject of the action during the pendency of the suit. If no such preliminary prohibitory injunction were issued, the defendant may, before final judgment, do or continue the doing of the act which the plaintiff asks the court to restrain, and thus make ineffectual the final judgment rendered afterwards granting the relief sought by the plaintiff. (Calo v. Roldan, G.R. No. L252, 1946)

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.

It may perpetually restrain the party or person enjoined from the commission or continuance of the act or acts or confirming the preliminary mandatory injunction. (Sec. 9, Rule 58)

WHEN WRIT MAY BE ISSUED, WHEN WRIT MAY NOT BE ISSUED

Preliminary injunction is granted at any stage of the proceedings prior to the judgment or final order. (Sec. 1, Rule 58)

Examples of When Preliminary Injunction May be Issued

• In petitions for relief from judgment entered through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence (Sec. 5, Rule 38);
• In actions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus (Sec. 7, Rule 65);
• In actions for annulment of judgments obtained through fraud (Anuran vs. Aquino and Ortiz, G.R. No. L-12397, 1918);
• In actions for annulment of judgments which are not patent nullities, i.e. want of jurisdiction, lack of due process of law (Banco Español-Filipino vs. Palanca, G.R. No. L-11390, 1918);
• To restrain husband from alienating or encumbering conjugal property during pendency of divorce proceedings. (De La Viña vs. Villareal and Geopano, G.R. No. L-13982, 1920)
• To restrain continued breach of valid negative obligation;
• To enjoin repeated trespass of land. (Rodulfa vs. Alfonso, G.R. No. L-144, 1946);
• To restrain the city from proceeding with abatement of nuisance per accidens before it has been judicially declared as such (Iloilo Ice and Cold Storage Co. vs. Municipal Council of Iloilo, G.R. No. 7012, 1913);
• To restrain voting of disputed shares of stocks (Madrigal vs. Rodas, G.R. No. L-1636, 1948);
• To restrain the sheriff from selling property on execution not belonging to judgment debtor (Codesal & Ocampo vs. Ascue, G.R. No. 11403, 1918);
• To restrain criminal prosecutions (Brocka v. Enrile, G.R. Nos. 69863-65, 1990);
• In cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer. (Sec. 15, Rule 70).

Generally, a criminal prosecution may not be restrained or stayed by injunction, preliminary or final, except:

• To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;
• When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of action;
• Where there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice;
• When the acts of the officers are without or in excess of authority;
• When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
• When the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance, or regulation;
• Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense;
• Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution;
• Where charges are manifestly false and motivated by lust or vengeance;
• When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied; and
• Preliminary Injunction has been issued by the SC to prevent threatened unlawful arrest of petitioners. (Brocka v. Enrile, G.R. Nos. 69863- 65, 1990)

Examples of When Preliminary Injunction Does Not Lie

• To take property out of the possession of one party and place it in another whose title is not clearly established by law (Devesa vs. Arbes, G.R. No. 4891, 1909);
• When action for damages would adequately compensate the injuries caused (Golding vs. Balatbat, G.R. No. 11130, 1917);
• To prevent directors from discharging their office and restoring former directors (Silen vs. Vera, G.R. No. 45574, 1937);
• To restrain criminal prosecution where the Ombudsman had authorized the special prosecutor to conduct a preliminary injunction or to file an injunction (Santiago vs. Vasquez, G.R. Nos. 99289-90, 1992);
• To enjoin the collection of national internal revenue taxes (NIRC, Sec. 218) but not local taxes (Angeles City v. Angeles City Electric Corporation, G.R. No. 166134, 2010)
• To block the discharge of functions and implementation of decisions of the Privatization and Management Office under the Dept. of Finance, in connection with the acquisition, sale, or disposition of assets transferred to it. (Proclamation No. 50 & 50-A of 1986, Sec. 31; EO No. 323, Art. III, 2000)
• To restrain the implementation of national infrastructure projects (R.A. No. 8975, Sec. 3)
• To restrain any freeze order issued by the AntiMoney Laundering Council except the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. (R.A. No. 9160, Sec. 10)
• Against the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (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 the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law and other pertinent laws on Agrarian reform (R.A. No. 6657, Sec. 55) nor against the Dept of Agrarian Reform, the Dept of Agriculture, the Dept of Environment and Natural Resources, and the Dept. of Justice in their implementation of the comprehensive agrarian reform program. (R.A. No. 6657, Sec. 68)
• Against the extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage on the allegation that:
• The loan secured by the mortgage has been paid or is not delinquent unless the application is verified and supported by evidence of payment
• The interest on the loan is unconscionable, unless the debtor pays the mortgagee at least 12% per annum interest on the principal obligation as stated in the application for foreclosure sale, which shall be updated monthly while the case is pending. (A.M. No. 99-10-05-O, 2007)

Entitlement to Relief Demanded

When there is a clear finding that the applicant is indeed the owner of the land in dispute, the applicant is entitled to the benefit of injunctive relief to remove intruders. (Sps. Dela Rosa v Heirs of Juan Valdez, G.R. No. 159101, 2011)

The writ will not issue if documents show that the right of the applicant is disputed, i.e. existence of lien on properties sought to be released from the mortgage. (Ngo v Allied Banking Corp, G.R. No. 177420, 2010)

A writ of preliminary injunction cannot be issued without a prior notice and hearing. It cannot be issued ex parte. (Sec. 5, Rule 58) Only a 72-hour TRO can.

Where the defendant is heard on the application for injunction, the trial court must consider, too, the weight of his opposition. (G.G. Sportswear v. BDO, G.R. No. 184434, 2010)

Injunction Against Acts Already Consummated

General Rule: Injunction contemplates acts being committed or about to be committed; thus, it does not lie against acts already consummated. (Regalado, 2008 ed.; Municipal Council of Sta. Rosa v. La Laguna, G.R. No. 1697, 1904)

Exception: In cases of issuance of mandatory injunction, i.e., if the acts complained of are continuing in nature and were in derogation of plaintiff’s rights at the outset. (Manila Electric Co. v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 7688, 1912)

Neither does it protects contingent or future rights nor lies to enforce an abstract right. (Cerenio v. Dictado G.R. No. 81550, 1988)

GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION TO, OR FOR THE DISSOLUTION OF INJUNCTION OR RESTRAINING ORDER

The application for injunction or restraining order may be denied or dissolved, if granted, upon a showing of:

• Its insufficiency;
• Other grounds upon affidavits of the party or person enjoined, which may be opposed by the applicant also by affidavits;
• If it appears after hearing that:
• Although the applicant is entitled to the injunction or restraining order, the issuance or 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; provided that:
• 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 the denial or dissolution of the restraining order. (Sec. 6, Rule 58).

The injunction may also be modified if it appears that the extent of the preliminary injunction or restraining order granted is too great. (Id.)

Filing of Counterbond to Dissolve Injunction is Not a Matter of Right

Unlike the counter-bond to discharge attachment, which the court shall order after due notice and hearing if the party whose property has been attached files a bond sufficient to secure the payment of any judgment that the attaching party may recover in the action, the counterbond to dissolve injunction may be approved by the court after hearing if:

• The court in the exercise of its discretion, finds that the continuance of the injunction would cause great damage to the defendant, while the plaintiff can be fully compensated for such damages as he may suffer; AND
• The defendant files a counter-bond. (Yap vs. Int’l. Exchange Bank, G.R. No. 175145, 2008)

Service of Copies of Bonds

The party filing a bond shall 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. (Sec. 7, Rule 58)

The injunction shall be dissolved:

• If the applicant's bond is found to be insufficient in amount, or if the surety or sureties thereon fail to justify the insufficiency; AND
• A bond sufficient in amount with sufficient sureties approved after justification is not filed forthwith. (Sec. 7, Rule 58)

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. 7, Rule 58)

Comparison: Effectivity Depending on the Court Which Issues TRO (Sec. 5, Rule 58)

72-hour TRO

It shall be granted if:

• The matter is of extreme urgency; and
• The applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury. (Sec. 5, Rule 58).

It shall be granted by the executive judge of a multiple-sala court or the presiding judge of a singlesala court, who shall immediately comply with Sections 4 and 5, Rule 58 as to service of summons and the documents to be served therewith.

RULE ON PRIOR CONTEMPORANEOUS SERVICE OF SUMMONS IN RELATION TO ATTACHMENT

General Rule: The application for a writ of preliminary injunction may or may not be included in a complaint or any initiatory pleading. The notice of hearing on the said application shall be preceded or contemporaneously accompanied by service of summons, together with a copy of the complaint or initiatory pleading and the applicant’s affidavits and bond, upon the adverse party in the Philippines. (Sec. 4, Rule 58).

Exceptions: The requirement of prior or contemporaneous service of summons shall not apply, in the following cases:

• 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
• The adverse party a non-resident thereof. (Id).

Duty of the Court That Issued the Writ

The trial court, the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Tax Appeals that issued the writ of preliminary injunction against a lower court, board, officer, or quasi-judicial agency shall decide the main case or petition six (6) months from the issuance of the writ. (A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, Effective December 27, 2007)

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 of confirming the preliminary mandatory injunction. (Sec. 9, Rule 58)

Claim for Damages From the Bond Filed

The posting of bond in connection with a preliminary injunction (or attachment, receivership, or replevin) does not operate to relieve the party obtaining the injunction from any and all responsibility for the damages that the writ may cause. It merely gives additional protection to the party against whom injunction is granted. (Sec. 20, Rule 57; Sec. 8, Rule 58)

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, to wit:

• An application for damages must be filed:
• Before the trial;
• Before the appeal is perfected; or
• Before the judgment becomes executory;
• The application must be with due notice to the adverse party and his sureties;
• The damages shall be awarded after hearing and included in the judgment of the main case;
• If the judgment on the appellate court be favorable against the party enjoined, he must claim damages sustained during the pendency of the appeal and before the judgment becomes executory, in accordance with nos. 2 and 3 above. The appellate court may allow the application to be heard and decided by the trial court;
• Should the bond be insufficient to satisfy the award, the claiming party shall not be prevented from recovering the damages, in the same action, from any property of the adverse party which is not exempt from execution. (Sec. 20, Rule 57; Sec. 8, Rule 58).

If surety is given due notice of the application for damages, he is bound by the judgment that may be entered against the principal. If no notice is given, the court must order the surety to show cause why the bond should not respond for the judgment for damages. If surety should contest, the court will set it for summary hearing. (Visayan Surety & Insurance Corp vs. Pascual, G.R. No. L-2981, 1950).

The claim for damages must be presented in the principal action and judgment therefor should be included in the final judgment of the case. It must be claimed in the same action, otherwise barred. (Feria 2013 citing Mendoza vs. Cruz, G.R. No. L-26829, 1979)

The remedy is exclusive and by failing to file a motion for the determination of the damages in time and while the judgment is still under the control of the court, the claimant loses his right to such damages. (Feria 2013, citing Japco vs. City of Manila, G.R. No. 24584, 1926)