Topic & Case Citation Principle in Riano Book Relevant Principles/Definition of Terms from the Full How it was

les/Definition of Terms from the Full How it was ruled

Text Ruling

Intro - NATURE OF PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
1. Zuneca v. Natrapharm GR 197802
Nov 11, 2015 A preliminary injunction, like any preliminary writ and any
interlocutory order, cannot survive the main case of which
VILLARAMA, JR., J.: it is an incident. An ancillary writ of preliminary injunction
loses its force and effect after the decision in the main
petition. (P. 1) (also found in P. 57 which is under Rule 58,
Case No. 7)
A writ of preliminary injunction is generally based solely
on initial and incomplete evidence. The evidence
submitted during the hearing on an application for a writ
of preliminary injunction is not conclusive or complete
for only a sampling is needed to give the trial court an
idea of the justification for the preliminary injunction
pending the decision of the case on the merits.31 As
such, the findings of fact and opinion of a court when
issuing the writ of preliminary injunction are
interlocutory in nature and made even before the trial
on the merits is commenced or terminated.
By contrast a permanent injunction, based on Section 9,
Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, forms part of the judgment
on the merits and it can only be properly ordered only
on final judgment. A permanent injunction may thus be
granted after a trial or hearing on the merits of the case
and a decree granting or refusing an injunction should
not be entered until after a hearing on the merits where
a verified answer containing denials is filed or where no
answer is required, or a rule to show cause is equivalent
to an answer
Here, this Court is being asked to
determine whether the CA erred by
issuing a permanent injunction in a case
which questioned the propriety of the
denial of an ancillary writ. But with the
RTC's December 2, 2011 Decision on the
case for "Injunction, Trademark
Infringement, Damages and
Destruction," the issues raised in the
instant petition have been rendered
moot and academic. We note that the
case brought to the CA on a petition
for certiorari merely involved the RTC's
denial of respondent's application for a
writ of preliminary injunction, a mere
ancillary writ. Since a decision on the
merits has already been rendered and
which includes in its disposition a
permanent injunction, the proper
remedy is an appeal36 from the decision
in the main case.
The petition is DENIED for being moot
and academic.

Intro - NOT FOUND IN THE BOOK The provisional remedies denominated attachment, Appearing from the evidence in the
2.Calo v. Roldan 76 Phil 445 preliminary injunction, receivership, and delivery of record that the palay was harvested by
G.R. No. L-252 personal property, provided in Rules 59, 60, 61, and 62 the receiver and not by said
March 30, 1946 of the Rules of Court, respectively, are remedies to which respondents, the petition for contempt
parties litigant may resort for the preservation or of court is DENIED.
FERIA, J.: protection of their rights or interest, and for no other
purpose, during the pendency of the principal action. If
an action, by its nature, does not require such protection
or preservation, said remedies can not be applied for
and granted.

(A) Attachment may be issued only in the case or

actions specifically stated in section 1, Rule 59,
in order that the defendant may not dispose
of his property attached, and thus secure the
satisfaction of any judgment that may be
recovered by plaintiff from defendant.
(B) Preliminary prohibitory injunction lies when

Page 1 of 49
Mani Fraternity :D

Intro -
3.Reyes v. Lim 408 scra 560
G.R. No. 134241
August 11, 2003
CARPIO, J.:
Mani Fraternity :D
the plaintiff's principal action is an ordinary
action of injunction, that is, when the relief
demanded in the plaintiff's complaint consists
in restraining the commission or continuance
of the act complained of, either perpetually or
for a limited period, and the other conditions
required by section 3 of Rule 60 are present.
The purpose of this provisional remedy 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.
(C) A receiver may be appointed to take charge
of personal or real property which is the
subject of an ordinary civil action, when it
appears that the party applying for the
appointment of a receiver has an interest in
the property or fund which is the subject of
the action or litigation, and that such property
or fund is in danger of being lost, removed or
materially injured unless a receiver is
appointed to guard and preserve it (section 1
[b], Rule 61); or when it appears that the
appointment of a receiver is the most
convenient and feasible means of preserving,
administering or disposing of the property in
litigation (section 1 [e] of said Rule).
(D) Delivery of personal property as a provisional
remedy consists in the delivery, by order of
the court, of a personal property by the
defendant to the plaintiff, who shall give a
bond to assure the return thereof or the
payment of damages to the defendant in the
plaintiff's action to recover possession of the
same property fails, in order to protect the
plaintiff's right of possession of said property,
or prevent the defendant from damaging,
destroying or disposing of the same during
the pendency of the suit.
KINDS OF PROVISIONAL REMEDIES UNDER THE RULES OF --XXX-- The Court of Appeals ruled the trial court
COURT could validly issue the assailed orders in
the exercise of its equity jurisdiction. The
Provisional remedies may also be granted in the exercise of court may grant equitable reliefs to
the court’s equity jurisdiction where no specific provisional breathe life and force to substantive law
remedy is provided for by the Rules in a particular case. (P. such as Article 1385 of the Civil Code
Page 2 of 49

Rule 57 -
1.Northern Islands v. Sps Garcia GR
203240 Mar 18, 2015
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Rule 57 -
2.Davao Light v. CA 204 scra 343
Mani Fraternity :D
8)
DEPOSIT AS A PROV REM IN THE EXERCISE OF EQUITY
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
“Xxx the trial court in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction
may validly order the deposit of the P10 million down
payment in court. The purpose of the exercise of equity
jurisdiction in this case is to prevent unjust enrichment and
to ensure restitution. Equity jurisdiction aims to do
complete justice in cases where a court of law is unable to
adapt its judgments to the special circumstances of a case
because of the inflexibility of its statutory or legal
jurisdiction. Equity is the principle by which substantial
justice may be attained in cases where the prescribed or
customary forms of ordinary law are inadequate.” (P. 9)
The consequence is that WHERE THE MAIN ACTION IS
APPEALED, the attachment which may have been issued as
an incident of that action, is also considered appealed and
so also removed from the jurisdiction of the court a quo.
The attachment itself cannot be the subject of a separate
action independent of the principal action because the
attachment was only an incident of such action. (p11,12)
STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING WHEN PRELIMINARY
ATTACHMENT MAYBE APPLIED FOR
NATURE OF PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT
ATTACHMENT is defined as a provisional remedy by
which the property of an adverse party is taken into legal
custody, either at the commencement of an action or at
any time thereafter, as a security for the satisfaction of
any judgment that may be recovered by the plaintiff or
any proper party
BEING MERELY ANCILLARY TO A PRINCIPAL
PROCEEDING, the attachment must fail if the suit itself
cannot be maintained as the purpose of the writ can no
longer be justified.
The consequence is that WHERE THE MAIN ACTION IS
APPEALED, the attachment which may have been issued
as an incident of that action, is also considered appealed
and so also removed from the jurisdiction of the court a
quo. The attachment itself cannot be the subject of a
separate action independent of the principal action
because the attachment was only an incident of such
action.
A preliminary attachment may be defined, paraphrasing
since the provisional remedies under the
Rules of Court do not apply to this case.
This desicion of the Court of Appeals was
AFFIRMED.
In this case, petitioner had duly
perfected its appeal of the
RTC’sSeptember 21, 2011 Decision
resolving the Main Case through the
timely filing of its Notice of Appeal dated
October 27, 2011, together with the
payment of the appropriate docket fees.
The RTC, in an Order dated January 25,
2012, had actually confirmed this fact,
and thereby ordered the elevation of the
entire records to the CA.WITH THE RTC’S
LOSS OF JURISDICTION OVER THE MAIN
CASE necessarily comes its loss of
jurisdiction over all matters merely
ancillary thereto. Thus, the PROPRIETY
OF CONDUCTING A TRIAL BY
COMMISSIONERS IN ORDER TO
DETERMINE THE EXCESSIVENESS OF
THE SUBJECT PRELIMINARY
ATTACHMENT, being a mere ancillary
matter to the Main Case, is now mooted
by its supervening appeal in CA-G.R. CV
No. 98237.
The Court ruled that with regard to the
Page 3 of 49
 G.R. No. 93262
December 29, 1991 Rule 57 in fact speaks of the grant of the remedy "at the
commencement of the action or at any time thereafter."
NARVASA, J.: The phase, "AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION,"
obviously refers to the date of the filing of the complaint—
which, as above pointed out, is the date that marks "the
commencement of the action;" and the reference plainly is
to a time before summons is served on the defendant, or
even before summons issues. What the rule is saying quite
clearly is that after an action is properly commenced — by
the filing of the complaint and the payment of all requisite
docket and other fees — the plaintiff may apply for and
obtain a writ of preliminary attachment upon fulfillment of
the pertinent requisites laid down by law, and that he may
do so at any time, either before or after service of summons
on the defendant. And this indeed, has been the
immemorial practice sanctioned by the courts: for the
plaintiff or other proper party to incorporate the
application for attachment in the complaint or other
appropriate pleading (counter-claim, cross-claim, third-
party claim) and for the Trial Court to issue the writ ex-parte
at the commencement of the action if it finds the
application otherwise sufficient in form and substance (p
16).
ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER; EX PARTE OR UPON MOTION
WITH NOTICE AND HEARING
It may also be issued ex parte and even before summons
is served upon the defendant. However, in this case, the
writ may not yet be enforced and validly implemented
unless preceded or simultaneously accompanied by service
of summons, copy of the complaint, application for
attachment, order of attachment and the attachment bond
(p. 31)
In Toledo v. Burgos, this Court ruled that a hearing on a
motion or application for preliminary attachment is not
generally necessary unless otherwise directed by the Trial
Court in its discretion. And in Filinvest Credit Corporation v.
Relova, the Court declared that "(n)othing in the Rules of
Court makes notice and hearing indispensable and
mandatory requisites for the issuance of a writ of
attachment." The only pre-requisite is that the Court be
satisfied, upon consideration of "the affidavit of the
applicant or of some other person who personally knows
the facts, that a sufficient cause of action exists, that the
case is one of those mentioned inSection 1 . . . (Rule 57),
Mani Fraternity :D
the Rules of Court, as the provisional remedy in virtue of PROVISIONAL REMEDIES OF
which a plaintiff or other party may, at the PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT,
commencement of the action or at any time thereafter, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION,
have the property of the adverse party taken into the RECEIVERSHIP OR REPLEVIN, they may
custody of the court as security for the satisfaction of be validly and properly applied for and
any judgment that may be recovered. It is a remedy granted even before the defendant is
which is purely statutory in respect of which the law summoned or is heard from.
requires a strict construction of the provisions granting
it. Withal no principle, statutory or jurisprudential,
prohibits its issuance by any court before acquisition of
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
Section 12 of Rule 57. SEC. 12. DISCHARGE OF
ATTACHMENT UPON GIVING COUNTERBOND. — At
any time after an order of attachment has been granted,
the party whose property has been attached or the
person appearing in his behalf, may, upon reasonable
notice to the applicant, apply to the judge who granted
the order, or to the judge of the court in which the action
is pending, for an order discharging the attachment
wholly or in part on the security given . . . in an amount
equal to the value of the property attached as
determined by the judge to secure the payment of any
judgment that the attaching creditor may recover in the
action.
BUT EVEN BEFORE ACTUAL LEVY ON PROPERTY, seizure
under attachment may be prevented also upon counter
bond. The defendant need not wait until his property is
seized before seeking the discharge of the attachment
by a counter bond. This is made possible by Section 5 of
Rule 57. SEC. 5. MANNER OF ATTACHING PROPERTY
Aside from the filing of a counter bond, a preliminary
attachment may also be lifted or discharged on the
ground that it has been irregularly or improperly issued,
in accordance with Section 13 of Rule 57. SEC. 13.
DISCHARGE OF ATTACHMENT FOR IMPROPER OR
IRREGULAR ISSUANCE. —
The party whose property has been attached may also,
at any time either BEFORE or AFTER the release of the
attached property, or before any attachment shall have
been actually levied, upon reasonable notice to the
attaching creditor, apply to the judge who granted the
order, or to the judge of the court in which the action is
pending, for an order to discharge the attachment on
the ground that the same was improperly or irregularly
Page 4 of 49
 that there is no other sufficient security for the claim sought issued. If the motion be made on affidavits on the part
to be enforced by the action, and that the amount due to of the party whose property has been attached, but not
the applicant, or the value of the property the possession otherwise, the attaching creditor may oppose the same
of which he is entitled to recover, is as much as the sum for by counter-affidavits or other evidence in addition to
which the order (of attachment) is granted above all legal that on which the attachment was made.
counterclaims." If the court be so satisfied, the "order of
attachment shall be granted," and the writ shall issue upon
the applicant's posting of "a bond executed to the adverse
party in an amount to be fixed by the judge, not exceeding
the plaintiffs claim, conditioned that the latter will pay all
the costs which may be adjudged to the adverse party and
all damages which he may sustain by reason of the
attachment, if the court shall finally adjudge that the
applicant was not entitled thereto (p33)

Rule 57 - Not Cited in the book PURPOSE OF ATTACHMENT The CA decision is in accordance with
3.Insular Bank of Asia v. CA 190 scra the law. CA decision is affirmed in toto.
629 The purpose of attachment is to secure a contingent lien
G.R. No. L-61011 on defendant's property until plaintiff can obtain a
October 18, 1990 judgment and have such property applied to its
satisfaction or to make provision for unsecured debts in
PADILLA, J.: such cases where the means of satisfaction thereof are
liable to be removed beyond the jurisdiction or
improperly disposed of (by fraud or otherwise) or
concealed or placed beyond the reach of creditors.

Rule 57 - DAMAGES FOR A WRONGFUL ATTACHMENT The petition is partly granted. The CA
4.Sps Yu v. Te GR 155868 Feb 6, decision is affirmed with modification
2007 As early as in Lazatin v. Twaño, we laid down the rule that that Sps Yu’s counterclaim is partly
where there is wrongful attachment, the attachment granted. They are awarded P50,000
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: defendant may recover actual damages even without proof temperate damages and P30,000
that the attachment plaintiff acted in bad faith in obtaining attorney’s fees.
the attachment. However, if it is alleged and established
that the attachment was not merely wrongful but also
malicious, the attachment defendant may recover moral
damages and exemplary damages as well. Either way, the
wrongfulness of the attachment does not warrant the
automatic award of damages to the attachment defendant;
the latter must first discharge the burden of proving the
nature and extent of the loss or injury incurred by reason
of the wrongful attachment. (p45)

To merit an award of actual damages arising from a

wrongful attachment, the attachment defendant must
prove, with the best evidence obtainable, the fact of loss or
injury suffered and the amount thereof. Such loss or injury
must be of the kind which is not only capable of proof but
must actually be proved with a reasonable degree of

Page 5 of 49
Mani Fraternity :D
 certainty. As to its amount, the same must be measurable
based on specific facts, and not on guesswork or
speculation. In particular, if the claim for actual damages
covers unrealized profits, the amount of unrealized profits
must be estalished and supported by independent
evidence of the mean income of the business undertaking
interrupted by the illegal seizure. (p. 46)

Rule 57 -
5.Security Pacific v. Tria-Infante 468 (Page 43, Riano Book) TWO (2) WAYS TO SECURE THE DISCHARGE OF AN Petitioner’s argument that the mere
scra 526 ATTACHMENT. filing of a counter-bond in this case
G.R. No. 144740
Counterbonds are mere replacements of the property cannot automatically discharge the
August 31, 2005
formerly attached, and just as the latter may be levied First, the party whose property has been attached or a attachment without first an order of
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: upon after final judgment. person appearing on his behalf may post a security. discharge and approval of the bond, is
Second, said party may show that the order of lame.
attachment was improperly or irregularly issued. The
first applies in the instant case. Section 12, Rule 57,
provides: The filing of the counter-attachment
bond by petitioner Villaluz has
SEC. 12. Discharge of attachment upon giving counter- discharged the attachment on the
bond. – After a writ of attachment has been enforced, properties and made the petitioner
the party whose property has been attached, or the corporation liable on the counter-
person appearing on his behalf, may move for the attachment bond.
discharge of the attachment wholly or in part on the
security given. The court shall, after due notice and
hearing, order the discharge of the attachment if the
movant makes a cash deposit, or files a counter-bond
executed to the attaching party with the clerk of the
court where the application is made, in an amount equal
to that fixed by the court in the order of attachment,
exclusive of costs. But if the attachment is sought to be
discharged with respect to a particular property, the
counter-bond shall be equal to the value of that
property as determined by the court. In either case, the
cash deposit or the counter-bond shall secure the
payment of any judgment that the attaching party may
recover in the action. A notice of the deposit shall
forthwith be served on the

Rule 57 - STRICT CONSTRUCTION The petition is DENIED.

Page 11, Riano Book
6.Watercraft Venture v. Wolfe GR A writ of preliminary attachment should be resorted to
181721

Page 6 of 49
Mani Fraternity :D
 only when necessary and as a last remedy because it The CA correctly ruled that Watercraft
A writ of preliminary attachment is defined as a provisional
September 9, 2015 exposes the debtor to humiliation and annoyance. It failed to meet one of the requisites for
remedy issued upon order of the court where an action is
must be granted only on concrete and specific grounds the issuance of a writ of preliminary
pending to be levied upon the property or properties of
G.R. No. 181721 and not merely on general averments quoting the attachment, i.e., that the case is one of
the defendant therein, the same to be held thereafter by
words of the rules. Since attachment is harsh, those mentioned in Section 1 of Rule 57,
the sheriff as security for the satisfaction of whatever
WATERCRAFT VENTURE extraordinary, and summary in nature, the rules on the and that the RTC gravely abused its
judgment that might be secured in the said action by the
CORPORATION, represented by its application of a writ of attachment must be strictly discretion in improvidently issuing such
attaching creditor against the defendant.
Vice-President, ROSARIO E. construed in favor of the defendant. writ. Watercraft failed to particularly
RANOA,Petitioners, state in its affidavit of merit the
vs.
FRAUD circumstances constituting intent to
ALFRED RAYMOND
In Liberty Insurance Corporation v. Court of Appeals,25 defraud creditors on the part of Wolfe in
WOLFE, Respondent.
the Court explained that to constitute a ground for contracting or in the performance of his
attachment in Section 1(d), Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, purported obligation to pay boat
PERALTA, J.:
it must be shown that the debtor in contracting the debt storage fees, as well as to establish that
or incurring the obligation intended to defraud the he is a flight risk. Indeed, if all the
creditor. A debt is fraudulently contracted if at the time requisites for granting such writ are not
of contracting it, the debtor has a preconceived plan or present, then the court which issues it
intention not to pay. "The fraud must relate to the acts in excess of its jurisdiction.
execution of the agreement and must have been the
reason which induced the other party into giving
consent which he would not have otherwise given."26

Fraudulent intent is not a physical entity, but a condition

of the mind beyond the reach of the senses, usually kept
secret, very unlikely to be confessed, and therefore, can
only be proved by unguarded expressions, conduct and
circumstances.27 Thus, the applicant for a writ of
preliminary attachment must sufficiently show the
factual circumstances of the alleged fraud because
fraudulent intent cannot be inferred from the debtor's
mere non-payment of the debt or failure to comply with
his obligation.28The particulars of such circumstances
necessarily include the time, persons, places and specific
acts of fraud committed.29 An affidavit which does not
contain concrete and specific grounds is inadequate to
sustain the issuance of such writ. In fact, mere general
averments render the writ defective and the court that
ordered its issuance acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to excess of jurisdiction.30

Rule 57 - Not in the book Posting of a counter-bond is not tantamount to a The respondent is not liable to the
7.DM Wenceslao v. Readycon GR waiver of the right to damages arising from a wrongful petitioners for damages caused by the
154106

Page 7 of 49
Mani Fraternity :D
 attachment. issuance and enforcement of the writ of
G.R. No. 154106 attachment.

June 29, 2004 Whether the attachment was discharged by either of the
two (2) ways indicated in the law, i.e., by filing a
counterbond or by showing that the order of
D.M. WENCESLAO and ASSOCIATES,
attachment was improperly or irregularly issued, the
INC., and/or DOMINADOR S.
liability of the surety on the attachment bond subsists
DAYRIT, petitioners,
because the final reckoning is when "the Court shall
vs.
finally adjudge that the attaching creditor was not
READYCON TRADING AND
entitled" to the issuance of the attachment writ in the
CONSTRUCTION CORP., respondent.
first place. The attachment debtor cannot be deemed to
have waived any defect in the issuance of the
QUISUMBING, J.: attachment writ by simply availing himself of one way of
discharging the attachment writ, instead of the other.
Moreover, the filing of a counterbond is a speedier way
of discharging the attachment writ maliciously sought
out by the attaching party creditor instead of the other
way, which in most instances like in the present case,
would require presentation of evidence in a fullblown
trial on the merits and cannot easily be settled in a
pending incident of the case.

AWARD OF DAMAGES

Plainly, we laid no hard and fast rule that bad faith or

malice must be proved to recover any form of damages.
In Philippine Commercial & Industrial Bank, we found
bad faith and malice to be present, thereby warranting
the award of moral and exemplary damages. But we
denied the award of actual damages for want of
evidence to show said damages. For the mere existence
of malice and bad faith would not per se warrant the
award of actual or compensatory damages. To grant
such damages, sufficient proof thereon is required.

Rule 57 - "SEC. 12. Discharge of attachment upon giving

(Page 20, Riano Book) Petition is GRANTED
8.Insular Savings Bank v. CA 460 scra counter-bond. – At any time after an order of
122 a writ of preliminary attachment cannot be issued for attachment has been granted, the party whose
moral and exemplary damages and other property has been attached, . . . may upon reasonable
notice to the applicant, apply to the judge who granted The Court of Appeals erred in not ruling
unliquidated and contingent claims.
the order or to the judge of the court which the action that the Trial Court committed grave
G.R. NO. 123638 abuse of discretion in denying
is pending, for an order discharging the attachment
wholly or in part on the security given. The judge shall, petitioner’s motion to discharge
June 15, 2005 after hearing, order the discharge of the attachment if a attachment by counter-bond in the
cash deposit is made, or a counter-bond executed to amount of 12,600,000.00.
INSULAR SAVINGS the attaching creditor is filed, on behalf of the adverse
BANK, Petitioner, party, with the clerk or judge of the court where the

Page 8 of 49
Mani Fraternity :D
 vs. application is made in an amount equal to the value of
COURT OF APPEALS, JUDGE OMAR the property attached as determined by the judge, to
U. AMIN, in his capacity as Presiding secure the payment of any judgment that the attaching
Judge of Branch 135 of the Regional creditor may recover in the action. x x x . Should such
Trial Court of Makati, and FAR EAST counter-bond for any reason be found to be, or
BANK AND TRUST become insufficient, and the party furnishing the same
COMPANY, Respondents. fail to file an additional counter-bond, the attaching
party may apply for a new order of attachment"
GARCIA, J.:
"The sheriff is required to attach only so much of the
property of the party against whom the order is issued
as may be sufficient to satisfy the applicant’s demand,
the amount of which is stated in the order, unless a
deposit is made or a counter-bond is given equal to
said amount. However, if the value of the property to
be attached is less than the amount of the demand, the
amount of the applicant’s bond may be equal to the
value of said property, and the amount of the adverse
party’s deposit or counter-bond may be equal to the
applicant’s bond. The writ of preliminary attachment is
issued upon approval of the requisite bond". (Emphasis
supplied)

Rule 57 - Not found in the book FRAUD AS GROUND FOR THE WRIT: Fraud on the part of respondent MPEI
9. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, The fraud must relate to the execution of the agreement was sufficiently established by the
Petitioner, and must have been the reason which induced the other factual findings of this Court in the
vs. MEGA PACIFIC ESOLUTIONS,
party into giving consent which he would not have latter's 2004 Decision and subsequent
INC., WILLY U.
otherwise given. pronouncements.
YU, BONNIE S. YU, ENRIQUE T.
TANSIPEK,
ROSITA Y. TANSIPEK, PEDRO O. To constitute a ground for attachment in Section 1(d),
TAN, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, fraud should be committed The Court directed the RTC to ISSUE in
JOHNSON W. FONG, BERNARD I. upon contracting the obligation sued upon. A debt is Civil Case No. 04-346, entitled Mega
FONG, AND fraudulently contracted if at the time of contracting it Pacific eSolutions, Inc., vs. Republic of
*LAURIANO A. BARRIOS the debtor has a preconceived plan or intention not to the Philippines, the Writ of Preliminary
pay, as it is in this case. The applicant for a writ of Attachment
SERENO, C.J. preliminary attachment must sufficiently show the
factual circumstances of the alleged fraud because
G.R No. 184666 fraudulent intent cannot be inferred from the debtor's
June 27,2016 mere non-payment of the debt or failure to comply with
his obligation.

An amendment to the Rules of Court added the phrase

"in the performance thereof" to include within the scope
of the grounds for issuance of a writ of preliminary
attachment those instances relating to fraud in the
performance of the obligation.

Page 9 of 49
Mani Fraternity :D
 Fraud is a generic term that is used in various senses and
assumes so many different degrees and forms that
courts are compelled to content themselves with
comparatively few general rules for its discovery and
defeat. For the same reason, the facts and circumstances
peculiar to each case are allowed to bear heavily on the
conscience and judgment of the court or jury in
determining the presence or absence of fraud. In fact,
the fertility of man's invention in devising new schemes
of fraud is so great that courts have always declined to
define it, thus, reserving for themselves the liberty to
deal with it in whatever form it may present
itself.68chanrobleslaw

Fraud may be characterized as the voluntary execution

of a wrongful act or a wilful omission, while knowing and
intending the effects that naturally and necessarily arise
from that act or omission.69 In its general sense, fraud is
deemed to comprise anything calculated to deceive—
including all acts and omission and concealment
involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or
confidence justly reposed—resulting in damage to or in
undue advantage over another.70 Fraud is also described
as embracing all multifarious means that human
ingenuity can device, and is resorted to for the purpose
of securing an advantage over another by false
suggestions or by suppression of truth; and it includes
all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling, and any other
unfair way by which another is cheated.71chanrobleslaw

While fraud cannot be presumed, it need not be proved

by direct evidence and can well be inferred from
attendant circumstances.72 Fraud by its nature is not a
thing susceptible of ocular observation or readily
demonstrable physically; it must of necessity be proved
in many cases by inferences from circumstances shown
to have been involved in the transaction in
question.73chanrobleslaw

Rule 57 - Not found in the book For a writ of preliminary attachment to issue under the The Court finds that Security Bank was
10.SECURITY BANK CORPORATION above-quoted rule, the applicant must sufficiently show able to substantiate its factual allegation
vs. GREAT the factual circumstances of the alleged fraud. It is of fraud, particularly, the violation of the
WALL COMMERCIAL PRESS settled that fraudulent intent cannot be inferred from trust receipt agreements, to warrant the
COMPANY, INC., the debtor's mere non-payment of the debt or failure to issuance of the writ of preliminary
ALFREDO BURIEL ATIENZA, comply with his obligation. attachment.
FREDINO CHENG
ATIENZA and SPS. FREDERICK While the Court agrees that mere
While fraud cannot be presumed, it need not be proved
CHENG ATIENZA violations of the warranties and
by direct evidence and can well be inferred from

Page 10 of 49
Mani Fraternity :D
 and MONICA CU ATIENZA attendant circumstances. Fraud by its nature is not a
thing susceptible of ocular observation or readily
MENDOZA, J. demonstrable physically; it must of necessity be proved
in many cases by inferences from circumstances shown
G.R No. 219345 to have been involved in the transaction in question.
January 30,2017
Previously, Section 1 (d), Rule 57 of the 1964 Rules of
Court provided that a writ of preliminary attachment
may be issued "[i]n an action against a party who has
been guilty of a fraud in contracting the debt or
incurring the obligation upon which the action is
brought xxx" Thus, the fraud that justified the issuance
of a writ of preliminary attachment then was only fraud
committed in contracting an obligation (dolo
casuante). 28 When the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
was issued by the Court, Section l(d) of Rule 57
conspicuously included the phrase "in the performance
thereof." Hence, the fraud committed in the
performance of the obligation (dolo incidente) was
included as a ground for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary attachment.29
This significant change in Section 1 (d) of Rule 57 was
recognized recently in Republic v. Mega Pacific
eSolutions, Inc. 30 The Court stated therein that "[a]n
amendment to the Rules of Court added the phrase "in
the performance thereof' to include within the scope of
the grounds for issuance of a writ of preliminary
attachment those instances relating to fraud in the
performance of the obligation."
Accordingly, the alleged fraud committed by
respondents in the performance of their obligation
should have been considered by the CA. Security Bank
detailed in its complaint that respondents, knowing
fully well that they were in default, submitted a
Repayment Proposal. 31 Then, they requested for a
meeting with the bank to discuss their proposal. For
unknown reasons, they did not meet the
representatives of the Security Bank.
Respondents even attached to its Motion to Lift Writ of
Preliminary Attachment Ad Cautelam32 the
correspondence they had with Security Bank, which
revealed that they did not meet the representatives of
the latter despite providing a specific date to discuss
the proposed repayment scheme. Respondents merely
Mani Fraternity :D
representations contained in the credit
agreement and the continuing
suretyship agreement do not constitute
fraud under Section 1(d) of Rule 57 of
the Rules of Court, the same cannot be
said with respect to the violation of the
trust receipts agreements.
1964 and 1997 Rules of Court
Previously, Section 1(d), Rule 57 of the
1964 Rules of Court provided that a writ
of preliminary attachment may be issued
"[i]n an action against a party who has
been guilty of a fraud in contracting the
debt or incurring the obligation upon
which the action is brought xxx" Thus,
the fraud that justified the issuance of a
writ of preliminary attachment then was
only fraud committed in contracting an
obligation (dolo casuante). When the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure was issued
by the Court, Section 1(d) of Rule 57
conspicuously included the phrase "in
the performance thereof." Hence, the
fraud committed in the performance of
the obligation (dolo incidente) was
included as a ground for the issuance of
a writ of preliminary attachment.
This significant change in Section 1(d) of
Rule 57 was recognized recently in
Republic v. Mega Pacific eSolutions,
Inc.30 The Court stated therein that "[a]n
amendment to the Rules of Court added
the phrase "in the performance thereof
to include within the scope of the
grounds for issuance of a writ of
preliminary attachment those instances
relating to fraud in the performance of
the obligation."
While the Court finds that Security Bank
has substantiated its allegation of fraud
against respondents to warrant the
Page 11 of 49
 offered lame excuses to justify their absence in the
arranged meeting and, ultimately, they failed to clarify
the non-compliance with their commitments. Such acts
bared that respondents were not sincere in paying their
obligation despite their maturity, substantiating the
allegations of fraud in the performance thereof.
These circumstances of the fraud committed by
respondents in the performance of their obligation
undoubtedly support the issuance of a writ of
preliminary attachment in favor of Security Bank.
Rule 57 - Not found in the book A lien is a "legal claim or charge on property, either real
11.TSUNEISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES or personal, as a collateral or security for the payment of
(CEBU), some debt or obligation." It attaches to a property by
INC.,
operation of law and once attached, it follows the
Vs.
property until it is discharged. What it does is to give the
MIS MARITIME CORPORATION
party in whose favor the lien exists the right to have a
JARDELEZA, J.: debt satisfied out of a particular thing. It is a legal claim
or charge on the property which functions as a collateral
G.R NO. 193572 or security for the payment of the obligation.
April 4,2018
A party who has a lien in his or her favor has a remedy
in law to hold the property liable for the payment of the
obligation. A lienholder has the remedy of filing an
action in court for the enforcement of the lien. In such
action, a lienholder must establish that the obligation
and the corresponding lien exist before he or she can
demand that the property subject to the lien be sold for
the payment of the obligation. Thus, a lien functions as
a form of security for an obligation.
Liens, as in the case of a maritime lien, arise in
accordance with the provision of particular laws
providing for their creation, such as the Ship Mortgage
Decree which clearly states that certain persons who
provide services or materials can possess a lien over a
vessel. The Rules of Court also provide for a provisional
remedy which effectively operates as a lien. This is found
in Rule 57 which governs the procedure for the issuance
of a writ of preliminary attachment.
A writ of preliminary attachment is a provisional remedy
Mani Fraternity :D
issuance of writ or preliminary
attachment, this finding should not in
any manner affect the merits of the
principal case. The writ of preliminary
attachment is only a provisional remedy,
which is not a cause of action in itself but
is merely adjunct to a main suit.
The issuance of the writ of preliminary
attachment by the RTC pursuant to its
May 31, 2013 Order, is UPHELD.
An attachment proceeding is for the
purpose of creating a lien on the
property to serve as security for the
payment of the creditors' claim. Hence,
where a lien already exists, as in this
case a maritime lien, the same is
already equivalent to an attachment.
To be clear, we repeat that when a lien
already exists, this is already
equivalent to an attachment. This is
where Tsuneishi's argument fails.
We also agree with the CA's factual
finding that MIS did not act with fraud
in refusing to pay the obligation. We
emphasize that when fraud is invoked
as a ground for the issuance of a writ
of preliminary attachment under Rule
57 of the Rules of Court, there must be
evidence clearly showing the factual
circumstances of the alleged fraud.
Fraud cannot be presumed from a
party's mere failure to comply with his
or her obligation. Moreover, the Rules
of Court require that in all
averments of fraud, the
circumstances constituting it must be
stated with particularity.
That the mere fact of failure to pay
after the obligation to do so has
become due and despite several
demands is not enough to warrant the
issuance of a writ of preliminary
attachment.
Page 12 of 49
 issued by a court where an action is pending. In simple
terms, a writ of preliminary attachment allows the levy
of a property which shall then be held by the sheriff. This
property will stand as security for the satisfaction of the
judgment that the court may render in favor of the
attaching party.
Twofold purpose:
First, it seizes upon property of an alleged debtor in
advance of final judgment and holds it subject to
appropriation, thereby preventing the loss or dissipation
of the property through fraud or other means.
Second, it subjects the property of the debtor to the
payment of a creditor's claim, in those cases in which
personal service upon the debtor cannot be obtained.
This remedy is meant to secure a contingent lien on the
defendant's property until the plaintiff can, by
appropriate proceedings, obtain a judgment and have
the property applied to its satisfaction, or to make some
provision for unsecured debts in cases in which the
means of satisfaction thereof arc liable to be removed
beyond the jurisdiction, or improperly disposed of or
concealed, or otherwise placed beyond the reach of
creditors.
There is a reason why a writ of
preliminary attachment is available only
in specific cases enumerated under
Section 1 of Rule 57. As it entails
interfering with property prior to a
determination of actual liability, it is
issued with great caution and only when
warranted by the circumstances.
As we said in Ng Wee v. Tankiansee,59
the rules on the issuance of the writ of
preliminary attachment as a provisional
remedy are strictly construed against the
applicant because it exposes the debtor
to humiliation and annoyance.
In accordance with consistent
jurisprudence, we must thus affirm the
ruling of the CA that the RTC, in issuing
a writ of preliminary attachment when
the requisites under the Rules of Court
were clearly not present, acted with
grave abuse of discretion.
Petition is DENIED.

Definition of Fraud
[A]s the voluntary execution of a wrongful act or a wilful
omission, while knowing and intending the effects that
naturally and necessarily arise from that act or omission.
In its general sense, fraud is deemed to comprise
anything calculated to deceive — including all acts and
omission and concealment involving a breach of legal or
equitable duty, trust, or confidence justly reposed —
resulting in damage to or in undue advantage over
another. Fraud is also described as embracing all
multifarious means that human ingenuity can device,
and is resorted to for the purpose of securing an
advantage over another by false suggestions or by
suppression of truth; and it includes all surprise, trick,
cunning, dissembling, and any other unfair way by which
another is cheated.

Page 13 of 49
Mani Fraternity :D
 Rule 57 -
12.PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL
INTERNATIONAL BANK, Petitioner,
vs.
JOSEPH ANTHONY M. ALEJANDRO,
Respondent.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
533 SCRA 738
G.R. No. 175587
September 21, 2007
Mani Fraternity :D
The purposes of preliminary attachment are: (page 15)
(1) to seize the property of the debtor in advance of final
judgment and to hold it for purposes of satisfying said
judgment, as in the grounds stated in paragraphs (a) to
(e) of Section 1, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court; or
(2) to acquire jurisdiction over the action by actual or
constructive seizure of the property in those instances
where personal or substituted service of summons on
the defendant cannot be effected, as in paragraph (f) of
the same provision.
In case the defendant does not reside and is not found in
the Philippines (and hence personal and substituted service
cannot be effected), the remedy of the plaintiff in order for
the court to acquire jurisdiction to try the case is to convert
the action into a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem by
attaching the property of the defendant. Thus, in order to
acquire jurisdiction in actions in personam where
defendant resides out of and is not found in the Philippines,
it becomes a matter of course for the court to convert the
action into a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem by
attaching the defendant’s property. The service of
summons in this case (which may be by publication
coupled with the sending by registered mail of the copy of
the summons and the court order to the last known
address of the defendant), is no longer for the purpose of
acquiring jurisdiction but for compliance with the
requirements of due process. (page 27)
Thus, in actions in personam against residents temporarily
out of the Philippines, the court need not always attach the
defendant’s property in order to have authority to try the
case. Where the plaintiff seeks to attach the defendant’s
property and to resort to the concomitant service of
summons by publication, the same must be with prior
leave, precisely because, if the sole purpose of the
attachment is for the court to acquire jurisdiction, the latter
must determine whether from the allegations in the
complaint, substituted service (to persons of suitable
discretion at the defendant’s residence or to a competent
person in charge of his office or regular place of business)
will suffice, or whether there is a need to attach the
property of the defendant and resort to service of
summons by publication in order for the court to acquire
jurisdiction over the case and to comply with the
requirements of due process. (page 28)
In the instant case, it must be stressed
that the writ was issued by the trial court
mainly on the representation of
petitioner that respondent is not a
resident of the Philippines.
Obviously, the trial court’s issuance of
the writ was for the sole purpose of
acquiring jurisdiction to hear and decide
the case. Had the allegations in the
complaint disclosed that respondent has
a residence in Quezon City and an office
in Makati City, the trial court, if only for
the purpose of acquiring jurisdiction,
could have served summons by
substituted service on the said
addresses, instead of attaching the
property of the defendant. The rules on
the application of a writ of attachment
must be strictly construed in favor of the
defendant. For attachment is harsh,
extraordinary, and summary in nature; it
is a rigorous remedy which exposes the
debtor to humiliation and annoyance.
It should be resorted to only when
necessary and as a last remedy.
It is clear from the foregoing that even
on the allegation that respondent is a
resident temporarily out of the
Philippines, petitioner is still not entitled
to a writ of attachment because the trial
court could acquire jurisdiction over the
case by substituted service instead of
attaching the property of the defendant.
The misrepresentation of petitioner that
respondent does not reside in the
Philippines and its omission of his local
addresses was thus a deliberate move to
ensure that the application for the writ
will be granted.
In light of the foregoing, the Court of
Appeals properly sustained the finding
of the trial court that petitioner is liable
for damages for the wrongful issuance
of a writ of attachment against
respondent.
Page 14 of 49

Rule 57 -
13.China Banking v. Asian
Construction 550 scra 585
G.R. No. 158271
April 8, 2008
CHINA BANKING
CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
ASIAN CONSTRUCTION and
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, respondent.
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
Rule 57 -
14.Luzon Dev’t v. Krishnan GR
203530 Apr 13, 2015
PERALTA, J.:
Mani Fraternity :D
CONDITIONS OF APPLICANT’S BOND (SECTION 4, RULE
57): PAGE 30-31
The liability attaches if “the plaintiff is not entitled to the
attachment because the
requirements entitling him to the writ are wanting,” or “if
the plaintiff has no right
to the attachment because the facts stated in his affidavit,
or some of them are
untrue.” Clearly, ACDC can only claim from the bond for
all the damages which it
may sustain by reason of the attachment and not because
of the sale of the
attached properties prior to final judgment. Sale of
attached property before final
judgment is an equitable remedy provided for the
convenience of the parties and
preservation of the property.
SALE OF PROPERTY AFTER LEVY ON ATTACHMENT AND
BEFORE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT: (P. 40)
Thus, an attached property may be sold after levy on
attachment and before entry
of judgment whenever it shall be made to appear to the
court in which the action is
pending, upon hearing with notice to both parties, that
the attached property is
perishable or that the interests of all the parties to the
action will be subserved by
the sale of the attached property.
Not found in the book
Petition was DENIED.
Nature of WPA as ProvRem; Proper Remedy: China Bank alleged that the attached
Considering that the herein assailed CA Resolutions are properties are placed in locations where
interlocutory in nature as they do not dispose of the they are totally exposed to the natural
case completely but leave something to be done upon elements and adverse weather
the merits,19 the proper remedy should have been by conditions since their attachment in
way of petition for certiorari under Rule 65, as provided 1999;39 that as a result, the attached
for in Section 1 (b), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, as properties have gravely deteriorated
amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC. with corrosions eating them up, with
weeds germinating and growing
Attached Property; When Perishable: thereon and their engines and motors
In McCreery, the Supreme Court of Alabama rejected the stock up;40 and that the same holds true
argument that the sale of the attached property was to the office furniture, office equipment,
void because the term "perishable" property, as used in accessories and supplies.41 No evidence,
the statute, meant only such property as contained in however, were submitted by China Bank
itself the elements of speedy decay, such as fruits, fish, to support and substantiate these
fresh meats, etc.35 The Supreme Court of Alabama held claims before the CA.
that whatever may be the character of the property, if
the court is satisfied that, either by reason of its Petition was DENIED.
perishable nature, or because of the expense of keeping
it until the termination of the litigation, it will prove, or
be likely to prove, fruitless to the creditor, and that the
purpose of its original seizure will probably be
frustrated, the sale of the attached property is justified.
McCreery applied the doctrine in Millard’s Admrs. v.
Hall36 where the Supreme Court of Alabama held that an
attached property is perishable "if it is shown that, by
keeping the article, it will necessarily become, or is likely
to become, worthless to the creditor, and by
consequence to the debtor, then it is embraced by the
statute. It matters not, in our opinion, what the subject
matter is. It may be cotton bales, live stock, hardware
provisions or dry goods." Although the statute under
which Millard’s was decided used the words "likely to
waste or be destroyed by keeping," instead of the word
"perishable," the reasons given for the construction
placed on the statute apply equally to the Alabama Code
which uses the term "perishable."
ATTACHMENT EX PARTE OR MOTION WITH NOTICE: Thus, the Court holds that petitioner’s
Section 2, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court explicitly states argument that it has the
that “[a]n order of option to deposit real property instead
attachment may be issued either ex parte or upon of depositing cash or filing a counter-
motion with notice and hearing bond to
Page 15 of 49
 by the court in which the action is pending, or by the discharge the attachment or stay the
Court of Appeals or the implementation thereof is
Supreme Court, and must require the sheriff of the unmeritorious.
court to attach so much of the
property in the Philippines of the party against whom it Petition was DENIED.
is issued, not exempt from
execution, as may be sufficient to satisfy the applicant’s
demand, unless such party
makes deposit or gives a bond as hereinafter provided
in an amount equal to that
fixed in the order, which may be the amount sufficient
to satisfy the applicant’s
demand or the value of the property to be attached as
stated by the applicant,
exclusive of costs.

MANNER OF ATTACHING PROPERTY:

Section 5 of the same Rule likewise states that “[t]he
sheriff enforcing the writ shall
without delay and with all reasonable diligence attach,
to await judgment and execution in the action, only so
much of the property in the Philippines of the party
against whom the writ is issued, not exempt from
execution, as may be sufficient to
satisfy the applicant’s demand, unless the former
makes a deposit with the court
from which the writ is issued, or gives a counter-bond
executed to the applicant, in
an amount equal to the bond fixed by the court in the
order of attachment or to the
value of the property to be attached, exclusive of
costs.”

REMEDY IN LIFTING THE WRIT OF ATTACHMENT:

It is evidently clear that once the writ of attachment has
been issued, the only
remedy of the petitioners in lifting the same is through
a cash deposit or the filing of
the counter-bond.

Cash deposit/Counterbond allowed:

while it is true that the word deposit cannot only be
confined or construed to refer to cash, a broader
interpretation thereof is not justified in the present
case for the reason that a party seeking a stay of the
attachment under Section 5 is required to make a
deposit in an amount equal to the bond fixed by the
court in the order of attachment or to the value of the

Page 16 of 49
Mani Fraternity :D

Rule 57 - REMEDY OF A THIRD PERSON, NOT A PARTY TO THE
15.Fort Bonifacio v. Yllas Lending ACTION, WHOSE PROPERTY IS
567 scra 454 ATTACHED: (P. 41)
Sheriff’s Indemnity Bond; Difference between sec 14 and
G.R. No. 158997 sec. 03
Pursuant to Section 14 of Rule 57, the sheriff is not
October 6, 2008 obligated to turn over to respondents the properties
subject of this case in view of respondents’ failure to file
FORT BONIFACIO DEVELOPMENT a bond. The bond in Section 14 of Rule 57 (proceedings
CORPORATION petitioner, where property is claimed by a third person) is different
vs. from the bond in Section 3 of the same rule (affidavit
YLLAS LENDING CORPORATION and and bond). Under Section 14 of Rule 57, the purpose of
JOSE S. LAURAYA, in his official the bond is to indemnify the sheriff against any claim by
capacity as President, respondents. the intervenor to the property seized or for damages
arising from such seizure, which the sheriff was making
CARPIO, J.: and for which the sheriff was directly responsible to the
third party. Section 3, Rule 57, on the other hand,
refers to the attachment bond to assure the return of
defendant’s personal property or the payment of
damages to the defendant if the plaintiff’s action to
recover possession of the same property fails, in order to
protect the plaintiff’s right of possession of said property,
or prevent the defendant from destroying the same
during the pendency of the suit.
Rule 57 - Not found in the book
16.POTC v. Sandiganbayan GR
174462 Feb 10, 2016
PEREZ, J.:
Mani Fraternity :D
property to be attached. The proximate relation of the
word "deposit" and "amount" is unmistakable in
Section 5 of Rule 57. Plainly, in construing said words, it
can be safely concluded that Section 5 requires the
deposit of money as the word "amount" commonly
refers to or is regularly associated with a sum of
money.
SEQUESTRATION:
Sequestration is the means to place or cause to be
placed under the PCGG’s and entities, for the purpose
of preventing the destruction, concealment or
dissipation of, and otherwise conserving and preserving
the same until it can be
determined through appropriate judicial proceedings,
whether the property was in
truth “ill-gotten.” However, the power of the PCGG to
sequester is merely provisional.
Sequestration is akin to the provisional remedy of
FBDC laments the failure of the trial
court to require respondents to file an
indemnity bond for FBDC's protection.
The trial court, on the other hand, did
not mention the indemnity bond in its
Orders dated 7 March 2003 and 3 July
2003.
Because of the absence of the
indemnity bond in the present case,
FBDC may also hold the sheriff for
damages for the taking or keeping of
the properties seized from FBDC.
Petition was GRANTED.
In the case at bar, the 34.9% ownership
of the sequestered property has been
finally adjudged; the ultimate purpose
of sequestration was already
accomplished when the ownership
thereof was adjudged to the
government by this Court in Republic of
the Phils. v. Sandiganbayan. Moreover,
the said shares in the ownership of the
sequestered properties have reverted to
the Government. The government now
owns 4,727 shares or 34.9% of the
Page 17 of 49
 preliminary attachment, xxxx. Similarly, in attachment,
the property of the defendant is seized as a security for
the satisfaction of any judgment that may be obtained,
and not
disposed of, or dissipated, or lost intentionally or
otherwise, pending litigation. Xxxxx The sequestered
properties are placed under the
control of the PCGG, subject to the final determination
of whether the property was
in truth ill--gotten.
As sequestration is a provisional remedy, a transitional
state of affairs, in order to
prevent the disappearance or dissipation of the
property pending the final disposition of the property,
the ultimate purpose of sequestration is to bring an
intended permanent effect while the PCGG investigates
in pursuit of a judicial
proceeding — to dispose of the sequestered
properties. Tersely put, the ultimate purpose of
sequestration is to recover the sequestered properties
in favor of the government in case they turn out to be
ill-gotten. This function to dispose of the property is
reserved to the Sandiganbayan. Until the
Sandiganbayan determines
whether the property was in truth and in fact “ill-
gotten,” the sequestration shall
subsist. In case of a finding that the sequestered
properties are ill-gotten, the property shall be returned
to the lawful owner, to the people, through the
government; otherwise, the sequestered property shall
be returned to the previous
owner.
Sequestration is. a conservatory writ,37 which purpose is
to preserve properties in custodia legis, lest the
dissipation and concealment of the "ill-gotten" wealth
the former President Marcos and his allies may resort
to, pending the final disposition of the properties.38 It is
to prevent the disappearance or dissipation pending
adjudgment of whether the acquisition thereof by the
apparent owner was attended by some vitiating
anomaly or attended by some illegal means.39 Thus by
no means is it permanent in character. Upon the final
disposition of the sequestered properties, the
sequestration is renderedfunctus officio.
Rule 58 - Not found in the book Preliminary injunction:
Mani Fraternity :D
sequestered corporations.
As the sequestered property has
already been disposed, the ultimate
purpose of sequestration has already
been attained; the evil sought to be
prevented is no longer present.
Evidently, the sequestered property
which was already returned to the
government cannot anymore be
dissipated or concealed. Otherwise
stated, the sequestered properties need
no longer be subject of reversion
proceedings because they have already
reverted back to the government. Thus,
as the sequestration is rendered functus
officio, it is merely ministerial upon the
Sandiganbayan to lift the same.
On a final note, while sequestration is
the means to revert the amassed ill-
gotten wealth back to the coffers of our
government, we must still safeguard
the protection of property rights from
overzealousness. Sequestration as
statutorily and constitutionally
recognized is not permanent. It must be
lifted when the law and proven facts
warrant, or when the purpose has been
accomplished.
Petition was GRANTED.
Page 18 of 49
 1.PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY A preliminary injunction is in the nature of an ancillary
(PPA), represented by Oscar M. remedy to preserve the status quo during the pendency
Sevilla, General Manager, Benjamin of the main case. As a necessary consequence, matters
B. Cecilio, Assistant Manager for
resolved in injunction proceedings do not, as a general
Operations, and Sisali B. Arap, Port
rule, conclusively determine the merits of the main case
Manager
vs. or decide controverted facts therein. Generally, findings
NASIPIT INTEGRATED ARRASTRE made in injunction proceedings are subject to the
AND STEVEDORING SERVICES, INC. outcome of the main case which is usually tried
(NIASSI), represented by Ramon subsequent to the injunction proceedings.
Calo
Jurisprudence provides that in a proceeding to
CAGUIOA, J. determine whether to issue a writ of preliminary
injunction, the applicant must show that it has a clear
G.R. No. 214864, legal right to be protected and that the other party’s act
March 22, 2017 against which the writ is to be directed violates that
right. The Court, however, clarified that although a clear
right is necessary, its existence need not be conclusively
established. In fact, the evidence to be submitted need
not be conclusive or complete but need only be a
sampling to convince the court to issue the preliminary
injunction pending the decision on the merits of the
case. In more explicit terms, the applicant only needs to
show that it has the ostensible right to the final relief
prayed for in the petition. Therefore, the issuance of a
preliminary injunction does not conclusively determine
the merits of the main case or decide controverted facts
therein. This is because a preliminary injunction is merely
an ancillary remedy to preserve the status quo and
prevent irreparable harm until the merits of the main
case resolving the rights of the parties are heard and
decided.

Rule 58 - MEANING OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ---XXX--- The petitions are GRANTED.

2.Liberty Broadcasting v. Atlocom A preliminary injunction is defined as "[a]n order granted
GR 205875 June 30, 2015 at any stage of an action prior to the judgment or final Consequently, the writ of preliminary
order, requiring a party or a court, agency or a person to injunction issued in said case, if any, is
VILLARAMA, JR., J.: refrain from a particular act or acts." (P. 49) hereby declared NULL and VOID.

PURPOSE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION The Temporary Restraining Order issued

It is well-settled that the sole object of a writ of preliminary by this Court is hereby made
injunction, whether prohibitory or mandatory, is to PERMANENT.
preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be
heard. They are usually granted when it is made to appear

Page 19 of 49
Mani Fraternity :D
 that there is a substantial controversy between the parties
and one of them is committing an act or threatening the
immediate commission of an act that will cause irreparable
injury or destroy the status quo of the controversy before
a full hearing can be had on the merits of the case, in other
words, they are preservative remedies for the protection of
substantive rights or interests, and, hence, not a cause of
action in itself, but merely adjunct to a main suit. In a sense,
they are regulatory processes meant to prevent a case from
being mooted by the interim act of the parties. (P. 52)

ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT AS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL

DISCRETION
The grant or denial of a writ of preliminary injunction is
discretionary upon the trial court because the assessment
and evaluation of evidence towards that end involve
findings of fact left to the said court for its conclusive
determination. (P. 54)

GROUNDS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF A

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
The following requisites must be proved before a writ of
preliminary injunction will issue: (1) The applicant must
have a clear and unmistakable right to be protected, that
is, a right in esse; (2) There is a material and substantial
invasion of such right; (3) There is an urgent need for the
writ to prevent irreparable injury to the applicant; and ( 4)
No other ordinary, speedy, and adequate remedy exists to
prevent the infliction of irreparable injury. (P. 62)

Rule 58 - PURPOSE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
3.Sps. Dunluan v. MBTC GR 196864 The status quo is the last actual, peaceable and
July 8, 2015 uncontested situation which precedes a controversy. The
status quo should be that existing at the time of the filing
PEREZ, J.: of the case. A preliminary injunction should not establish
new relations between the parties, but merely maintain or
re-establish the pre-existing relationship between them. (P.
52)
---XXX--- As the highest bidder at the foreclosure
sale, Metrobank can exercise its right of
possession over the subject realty, and
the issuance of writ of preliminary
injunction, enjoining the bank from
occupying the property in question, is
erroneous. The instant petition is hereby
DENIED.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION DISTINGUISHED FROM THE

MAIN ACTION FOR INJUNCTION
Such being a preservative remedy for the protection of
substantive rights or interests, is not a cause of action in
itself but merely a provisional remedy, an adjunct to a main
suit. (P. 56)
GROUNDS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Page 20 of 49
Mani Fraternity :D

Rule 58 -
4. G.R. No. 199324 : January 7, 2013
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, SECRETARY
OF FINANCE, COMMISSIONER OF
CUSTOMS, DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF
CUSTOMS, Port of Aparri, Cagayan,
DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS,
Port of San Fernando, La Union, and
HEAD OF THE LAND
TRANSFORTATION
OFFICE, Petitioners, v.FORERUNNER
MULTI RESOURCES,
INC., Respondent.
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
Rule 58 -
5. [G.R. No. 170038 : July 11, 2012]
CHINA BANKING CORPORATION,
PETITIONER, VS. SPS. HARRY
CIRIACO AND ESTHER CIRIACO,
RESPONDENTS.cralaw
DECISION
BRION, J.:
Mani Fraternity :D
To be entitled to the injunctive writ, petitioners must show
that (1) there exists a clear and unmistakable right to be
protected; (2) this right is directly threatened by an act
sought to be enjoined; (3) the invasion of the right is
material and substantial; and (4) there is an urgent and
paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious and
irreparable damage (P. 62)
NOT FOUND IN THE BOOK
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AS EQUITABLE REMEDY
It is the "strong arm of equity,” an extraordinary
peremptory remedy that must be used with extreme
caution, affecting as it does the respective rights of the
parties. (p. 51)
It is a deeply ingrained doctrine in Philippine remedial The petition is GRANTED.
law that a preliminary injunctive writ under Rule 58
issues only upon a showing of the applicant’s "clear legal
right" being violated or under threat of violation by the
defendant. "Clear legal right," within the meaning of Rule
58, contemplates a right "clearly founded in or granted
by law.” Any hint of doubt or dispute on the asserted
legal right precludes the grant of preliminary injunctive
relief.
Before a writ of preliminary injunction may be issued, a The petition is GRANTED.
clear showing must be made that there exists a right to
be protected and that the acts against which the writ is The Writ of Preliminary Injunction
to be directed are violative of an established right. The issued is declared VOID and is therefore
holding of a hearing, where both parties can introduce SET ASIDE.
evidence and present their side, is also required before
the courts may issue a TRO or an injunctive wit.
Side Note: Injury is considered irreparable if it is of such
constant and frequent recurrence that no fair or
reasonable redress can be had therefor in a court of law
(Allundorff v. Abrahanson, 38 Phil. 585) or where there is
no standard by which their amount can be measured
with reasonable accuracy, that is, it is not susceptible of
mathematical computation (SSC v. Bayona, et al., L-
13555, May 30, 1962).
Page 21 of 49
 Rule 58 - NOT FOUND IN THE BOOK For a Writ of Preliminary Injunction to issue, the
6.Cahambing v. Espino GR 215807 following requisites must be present, to wit: (1) the
Jan 25, 2017 existence of a clear and unmistakable right that must be
protected, and (2) an urgent and paramount necessity
PERALTA, J.: for the writ to prevent serious damage.
The very foundation of the jurisdiction to issue a writ of
injunction rests in the existence of a cause of action and
in the probability of irreparable injury, inadequacy of
pecuniary compensation, and the prevention of
multiplicity of suits.
The grant or denial of a writ of preliminary injunction in
a pending case, rests in the sound discretion of the court
taking cognizance of the case. Hence, the exercise of
judicial discretion by a court in injunctive matters must
not be interfered with except when there is grave abuse
of discretion.
In this case, no manifest abuse can be
attributed to the RTC that issued the
questioned writ. This Court has also held
that no grave abuse of discretion can be
attributed to a judge or body issuing a
writ of preliminary injunction where a
party has not been deprived of its day in
court as it was heard and it exhaustively
presented all its arguments and
defenses.
The petition is DENIED.

Rule 58 - The injunction is permanent and forms part of the A writ of preliminary injunction is generally based solely We hold that the issues raised in the
7.Zuneca v. Natrapharm GR 197802 judgment on the merits and it can only be properly on initial and incomplete evidence.30 The evidence instant petition have been rendered
Nov 11, 2015 ordered on final judgment. (p.57) submitted during the hearing on an application for a writ moot and academic given the RTC’s
of preliminary injunction is not conclusive or complete December 2, 2011 Decision on the
VILLARAMA, JR., J.: for only a sampling is needed to give the trial court an merits of the case.
idea of the justification for the preliminary injunction
pending the decision of the case on the merits.31 As
such, the findings of fact and opinion of a court when
issuing the writ of preliminary injunction are
interlocutory in nature and made even before the trial
on the merits is commenced or terminated.32

By contrast a permanent injunction, based on Section 9,

Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, forms part of the judgment
on the merits and it can only be properly ordered only
on final judgment. A permanent injunction may thus be
granted after a trial or hearing on the merits of the case
and a decree granting or refusing an injunction should
not be entered until after a hearing on the merits where
a verified answer containing denials is filed or where no
answer is required, or a rule to show cause is equivalent
to an answer.33

Rule 58 - Not cited in the book The Issuance of a TRO/WPI is not a prejudgment of the Accordingly, let a TRO be issued
8.Borlongan v. BDO GR 217617 April main case enjoining, prohibiting, and preventing
5, 2017 respondent BDO, its assigns, transferees,
Existence of the grounds for the issuance of a writ of successors, or any and all other persons
VELASCO, JR, J.: preliminary injunction: acting on its behalf from possessing,
selling, transferring, encumbering or

Page 22 of 49
Mani Fraternity :D
 First, petitioner has a clear and unmistakable right that otherwise exercising acts of ownership
must be protected. This right is not just her proprietary over the property subject of the
rights over the subject property but her constitutionally controversy. Said TRO shall remain valid
protected right to due process. As the essence of due and effective until such time as the rights
process lies in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and interests of the parties shall have
and to submit any evidence the defendant may have in been determined and finally resolved.
support of her defense, she must be properly served the
summons of the court. Second, Without a TRO and/or
WPI enjoining the respondent bank from continuing in
the possession and consolidating the ownership of the
subject property, petitioner's right to be afforded due
process will unceasingly be violated. Resort to the
service of summons by publication is unwarranted. She
must be properly served the summons of the court.
There was no diligent effort made to find the petitioner.
Neither was it impossible to locate the residence of
petitioner and her whereabouts.

A writ of preliminary injunction would become a

prejudgment of a case only when it grants the main
prayer in the complaint or responsive pleading, so much
so that there is nothing left for the trial court to try
except merely incidental matters,

Rule 58 - Not cited in the book Clear and unmistakable rights to be protected by the Likewise, upon the dismissal of the main
9.Sps Plaza v. Lustiva GR 172909 writ: case by the RTC on August 8, 2013, the
Mar 5, 2014 question of issuance of the writ of
As the lower courts correctly found, Tuazon had no preliminary injunction has become moot
BRION, J.: ownership to confer to the petitioners despite the and academic.
latter’s reimbursement of Tuazon’s purchase expenses.
Because they were never owners of the property, the
petitioners failed to establish entitlement to the writ of
preliminary injunction. "[T]o be entitled to an injunctive
writ, the right to be protected and the violation against
that right must be shown. 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.When the
complainant’s right or title is doubtful or disputed, he
does not have a clear legal right and, therefore, the
issuance of injunctive relief is not proper."

PI as Provisional Remedy:

Upon the dismissal of the main action, the question of

the non-issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction

Page 23 of 49
Mani Fraternity :D
 automatically died with it. A writ of preliminary
injunction is a provisional remedy; it is auxiliary, an
adjunct of, and subject to the determination of the main
action. It is deemed lifted upon the dismissal of the main
case, any appeal therefrom notwithstanding.

Rule 58 - Not found in the book Definition of WPI

10.LOCAL WATER UTILITIES A writ of preliminary injunction is an order granted at
ADMINISTRATION EMPLOYEES any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the
ASSOCIATION FOR PROGRESS
judgment or final order, requiring a party or a court,
(LEAP), MELANIO B. CUCHAPIN II,
agency or a person to refrain from a particular act or
GREARDO* G. PERU, ROLAND S.
CABAHUG, GLORIA P. VELASQUEZ, acts.
ERLINDA G. VILLANUEVA, TEODORO
M. REYNOSO, FERNANDO L. WPI as a provisional remedy
NICANDRO, JOSEPHINE P. SIMENE, It is merely a provisional remedy, adjunct to the main
LAMBERTO R. RIVERA, REYNALDO case subject to the latter's outcome. It is not a cause of
M. VIDA, and RUCTICO** B. TUTOL,
action in itself. The writ is provisional because it
Petitioners,
vs. constitutes a temporary measure availed of during the
LOCAL WATER UTILITIES pendency of the action and it is ancillary because it is a
ADMINISTRATION (LWUA) and mere incident in and is dependent upon the result of the
DEPA, Respondents main action.

Peralta, J.
Object of a preliminary injunction,
It is well settled that the sole object of a preliminary
G.R. No. 206808-09
September 07, 2016 injunction whether prohibitory or mandatory, is to
preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can
be heard.

It is usually granted when it is made to appear that there

is a substantial controversy between the parties and one
of them is committing an act or threatening the
immediate commission of an act that will cause
irreparable injury or destroy the status quo of the
controversy before a full hearing can be had on the
merits of the case. It persists until it is dissolved or until
the termination of the action without the court issuing a
final injunction.

-Cited ruling: Unionbank of the Philippines v. Court of

Appeals
x x x "a dismissal, discontinuance or non-suit of an action
in which a restraining order or temporary injunction has

Page 24 of 49
Mani Fraternity :D

Rule 58 -
11.AGOO RICE MILL CORPORATION
(represented by its President, Kam
Biak Y. Chan, Jr.), Petitioner,
vs.
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
Brion, J.
G.R. No. 173036
September 26, 2012
Rule 58 -
12.REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
represented by LT. GEN. JOSE M.
CALIMLIM, in his capacity as former
Chief of the Intelligence Service,
Armed Forces of the Philippines
(ISAFP), and former Commanding
General, Presidential Security Group
(PSG), and MAJ. DAVID B. DICIANO,
in his capacity as an Officer of ISAFP
and former member of the PSG,
Petitioners,
vs.
HON. VICTORINO EVANGELISTA, in
his capacity as Presiding Judge,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 223,
Quezon City, and DANTE LEGASPI,
Mani Fraternity :D
Preliminary Injunction distinguished from the main action
for injunction
An injunction may either be an action in itself or a
provisional remedy. As an action in itself, it is a main action
for injunction and, as a provisional remedy, it is a
preliminary injunction p.56
Not found in the book
been granted operates as a dissolution of the restraining
order or temporary injunction," regardless of whether
the period for filing a motion for reconsideration of the
order dismissing the case or appeal therefrom has
expired. The rationale therefor is that even in cases
where an appeal is taken from a judgment dismissing an
action on the merits, the appeal does not suspend the
judgment, hence the general rule applies that a
temporary injunction terminates automatically on the
dismissal of the action.
Definition of Injunction
"Injunction is a judicial writ, process or proceeding
whereby a party is ordered to do or refrain from doing a
certain act. It may be the main action or merely a
provisional remedy for and as an incident in the main
action."
Essential requisites
For an injunction to issue, the following essential
requisites must be present: (1) there must be a right in
esse or the existence of a right to be protected; and (2)
the act against which the injunction is directed to
constitute a violation of such right.
A writ of preliminary injunction is an ancilliary or
preventive remedy that is resorted to by a litigant to
protect or preserve his rights or interests and for no
other purpose during the pendency of the principal
action.
It is issued by the court to prevent threatened or
continuous irremediable injury to the applicant before
his claim can be thoroughly studied and adjudicated.
Its aim is to preserve the status quo ante until the merits
of the case can be heard fully, upon the applicant’s
showing of two important conditions, viz.: (1) the right
to be protected prima facie exists; and, (2) the acts
sought to be enjoined are violative of that right
Pertinent provisions:
Section 3, Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
Important points in the ruling
ARMC had no actual right to protect or
to enforce against the LBP. It failed to
satisfy the first requisite, i.e., the
existence of a clear and unmistakable
right for the issuance of an injunction.
LBP had every right to foreclose on the
Real and Chattel Mortgage since the
ARMC had defaulted in the payment of
its overdue loan obligation with the
bank. The foreclosure is supported by
the express mandate of P.D. 385. ARMC
cannot secure an injunction against the
LBP, a government financial institution.
In the case at bar, we find that
respondent judge had sufficient basis to
issue the writ of preliminary injunction. It
was established, prima facie, that
Legaspi has a right to peaceful
possession of his land, pendente lite.
Legaspi had title to the subject land. It
was likewise established that the
diggings were conducted by petitioners
in the enclosed area of Legaspi’s land.
Whether the land fenced by Gutierrez
and claimed to be included in the land
of Legaspi covered an area beyond that
which is included in the title of Legaspi is
a factual issue still subject to litigation
Page 25 of 49
 represented by his attorney-in-fact, provides that a writ of preliminary injunction may be and proof by the parties in the main case
Paul Gutierrez, Respondent. issued when it is established: for damages. It was necessary for the
(a) that the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, trial court to issue the writ of preliminary
Puno, J. the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the
injunction during the pendency of the
commission or continuance of the act or acts
main case in order to preserve the rights
G.R. No. 156015. complained of, or in requiring the performance of an act
(466 SCRA 544) or acts, either for a limited period or perpetually; and interests of private respondents
August 11, 2005 (b) that the commission, continuance or non- Legaspi and Gutierrez.
performance of the act or acts complained of during the
litigation would probably work injustice 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.

Degree of evidence required

It is clear that mere prima facie evidence is needed to
establish the applicant’s rights or interests in the subject
matter of the main action at the hearing for the issuance
of a writ of preliminary injunction. It is not required that
the applicant should conclusively show that there was a
violation of his rights as this issue will still be fully
litigated in the main case. Thus, an applicant for a writ is
required only to show that he has an ostensible right to
the final relief prayed for in his complaint.

Rule 58 - Not found in Riano Book -Definition of Injunction
13.Evy Construction v. Valiant GR Injunction is defined as "a judicial writ, process or
207938 Oct 11, 2017 proceeding whereby a party is ordered to do or refrain
from doing a certain act."
LEONEN, J.:
-Injunction as a main action vs. injunction as a
provisional remedy
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 can be heard. A
preliminary injunction is granted at any stage of an
action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final
order. It persists until it is dissolved or until the
termination of the action without the court issuing a
final injunction.
The Petition is DENIED.
The grant or denial of a writ of
preliminary injunction in a pending case
rests in sound discretion of the court
taking cognizance of the case since the
assessment and evaluation of evidence
towards that end involve findings of
facts left to the said court for its
conclusive determination.
The court's discretion is not interfered
with unless there is a showing that the
grant or denial was tainted with grave
abuse of discretion.
The trial court, in the exercise of its
discretion, denied petitioner's
application for the issuance of a

Page 26 of 49
Mani Fraternity :D

-Temporary Restraining Order & WPI
A temporary restraining order may be issued ex parte
"to preserve the status quo until the hearing of the
application for preliminary injunction which cannot be
issued ex parte." A trial court may issue a temporary
restraining order even without a prior hearing for a
limited period of 72 hours "if the matter is of extreme
urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and
in-reparable injury." In this instance, a summary
hearing, separate from the application of the
preliminary injunction, is required only to determine if a
72-hour temporary restraining order should be
extended.
temporary restraining order and writ of
preliminary injunction on the ground
that petitioner would still have sufficient
relief in its prayer for damages in its
Complaint. In the event that the
annotations on petitioner's title are
found by the trial court to be invalid,
petitioner would have adequate relief in
the removal of the annotations and in
the award of damages. Therefore, the
trial court acted within the bounds of its
discretion.

A trial court may also issue ex parte a temporary

restraining order for 20 days 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."

An application for preliminary injunction may be

denied even without the conduct of a hearing separate
from that of the summary hearing of an application for
the issuance of a temporary restraining order.

-Requisites for the issuance of WPI

The issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is
considered an "extraordinary event," being a ''strong
arm of equity or a transcendent remedy." Thus, the
power to issue the writ "should be exercised sparingly,
with utmost care, and with great caution and
deliberation."

An injunctive writ is granted only to applicants with

"actual and existing substantial rights" or rights in esse.
Further, the applicant must show "that the invasion of
the right is material and substantial and that there is an
urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent
serious damage." Thus, the writ will not issue to
applicants whose rights are merely contingent or to
compel or restrain acts that do not give rise to a cause
of action.

Page 27 of 49
Mani Fraternity :D
 -Other important points in the Ruling
No injunctive writ could be issued pending a final
determination of petitioner's actual and existing right
over the property. The grant of an injunctive writ could
operate as a prejudgment of the main case.

When injury is considered irreparable?

Injury is considered irreparable if "there is no standard
by which [its] amount can be measured with
reasonable accuracy." The injury must be such that its
pecuniary value cannot be estimated, and thus, cannot
fairly compensate for the loss.

Rule 58 - POSTING OF A BOND (Page 65) -SAME- Petition for review on certiorari under
14.Land Bank v. Heirs of Listana 649 Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by
scra 416 An applicant for preliminary injunction is required to file a LBP was DENIED
bond executed to the party or person enjoined, to the
effect that the applicant will pay to such party or person all
G.R. No. 182758 damages which he may sustain by reason of the injunction.
An applicant for preliminary injunction is required to file a
May 30, 2011 bond executed to the party or person enjoined, to the
effect that the applicant will pay to such party or person all
damages which he may sustain by reason of the injunction.
LAND BANK OF THE "The purpose of the injunction bond is to protect the
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, defendant against loss or damage by reason of the
vs. injunction in case the court finally decides that the plaintiff
HEIRS OF SEVERINO was not entitled to it, and the bond is usually conditioned
LISTANA, Respondents. accordingly."

CARPIO, J.:

Rule 58 - GROUNDS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF A
15.Lim v. CA GR 190134 Jul 8, 2015 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Page 62)
PERALTA, J.:
Section 3, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court provides that a
preliminary injunction may be granted when the following
have been established:
-SAME- Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and
Mandamus with Prayer for a Temporary
Restraining Order and/or Writ of
Preliminary filed by Spouses Lim was
DENIED

(a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief

demanded, and the whole or part of such relief
consists in restraining the commission or
continuance of the act or acts complained of, or

Page 28 of 49
Mani Fraternity :D
 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
injustice 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 fo the
applicant respecting the subject of the action or
proceeding, and tending to render the
judgement ineffectual

Interpreting Sec. 3 of Rule 58, the Court explains:

Section 3, Rule 58 of the 1997 Revised Rules on Civil
Procedure provides that a writ of preliminary injunction,
whether mandatory of prohibitory, may be granted if the
following requisites are met.

“1. There exists a clear and unmistakable right to be

protected;

(2) this right id directly threatened by an act sought to be

enjoined;

(3) the invasion of the right is material and substantial;

and

(4) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ

to prevent serious and irreparable damage.

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
requisites of a valid injunction are the existence of the right
and its actual or threatened violations. Thus, to be entitled
to an injunctive writ, the right to be protected and the
violations against the right must be shown”

NOTICE AND HEARING (BAR 1998, 2001) (Page 66)

Page 29 of 49
Mani Fraternity :D
 A writ of preliminary injunction cannot be issued without
a prior notice or hearing. Under the Rules, “No preliminary
injunction shall be granted without hearing and prior
notice to the party or persons sought to be enjoined”

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (BAR 2006) (Page 67)

1. A restraining order, more commonly known as
a temporary restraining order (TRO), is issued to
preserve the status quo until the hearing of the
application for a writ of preliminary injunction
because the injunction cannot be issued ex parte.
By its nature, it could be considered as a
“provisional remedy within a provisional remedy’
because it is issued to preserve the status quo for
a limited period until the court decides to issue
a writ of preliminary injunction.

2. The applicant shall file a bond, unless exempted

by the court. The rule grants the court the
discretion on the matter of the posting of a
bond. This grant of discretion is not, however,
intended to give the judge the license to exercise
such discretion arbitrarily to the enjoined party
will not suffer any damage, the presiding judge
must require the applicant to post a bond;
otherwise, the courts could become instruments
of oppression and harassment.

3. If it shall appear from facts shown by affidavits

or by the verified application that great or
irreplaceable injury would result to the applicant
before the matter can be heard on notice, the
court, in which the application for the preliminary
injunction was made, may issue a temporary
restraining order (TRO) ex parte for a period not
exceeding 20 days from service on the party or a
person sought to be enjoined.

Within the said twenty-day period the court has

an important duty. The court must order said
party or a person to show cause why the
injunction would not be granted. Also, within the
same period, the court shall determine whether
or not the preliminary injunction shall be granted
and then issue the corresponding order.

Page 30 of 49
Mani Fraternity :D
 Rule 58 -
16.Boncodin v. NAPOCOR
Employees GR 162716 Sep 27, 2006
PANGANIBAN, C.J.:
Not found in Riano Book Prohibition; A petition for prohibition is a preventive
remedy and, as a rule, does not lie to restrain an act that
is already fait accompli.—A petition for prohibition is a
preventive remedy and, as a rule, does not lie to restrain
an act that is already fait accompli.
Petition is GRANTED. Respondent has
not justified the issuance of the Writ of
Preliminary Injunction by proving its
clear and positive legal right to the step
increments..

Respondent’s immediate resort to judicial action is

justified because only legal issues are to be resolved.

The principle of non-exhaustion of administrative

remedies may be dispensed with in the present case
because its application would not constitute a plain,
speedy and adequate remedy.—All in all, the principle of
non-exhaustion of administrative remedies is not an
inflexible rule. It may be dispensed with in the present
case, because its application would not constitute a
plain, speedy and adequate remedy. The issues here are
purely legal, and judicial intervention has been shown to
be urgent.

Requisites to be Entitled to a Writ of Injunction.—To be

entitled to a writ of injunction, a party must establish the
following requisites: (a) the right of the complainant is
clear and unmistakable; (b) the invasion of the right
sought to be protected is material and substantial; and
(c) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the
writ to prevent serious damage.

The question of whether a writ of preliminary injunction

should be issued is addressed to the sound discretion of
the issuing court; The grant of the writ is conditioned on
the existence of the movant’s clear and positive right
which should be protected; Absent any clear and
unquestioned legal right, the issuance of an injunctive
writ would constitute grave abuse of discretion.—The
question of whether a writ of preliminary injunction
should be issued is addressed to the sound discretion of
the issuing court. The grant of the writ is conditioned on
the existence of the movant’s clear and positive right,
which should be protected. It is an extraordinary
peremptory remedy available only on the grounds
expressly provided by law, specifically Section 3 of Rule

Page 31 of 49
Mani Fraternity :D
 58. A clear legal right means one clearly founded in or
granted by law or is “enforceable as a matter of law.”
Absent any clear and unquestioned legal right, the
issuance of an injunctive writ would constitute grave
abuse of discretion. Injunction is not designed to protect
contingent, abstract or future rights whose existence is
doubtful or disputed. It cannot be grounded on the
possibility of irreparable damage without proof of an
actual existing right. Sans that proof, equity will not take
cognizance of suits to establish title or lend its
preventive aid by injunction.

A finding that the applicant for preliminary injunction

may suffer damage not capable of pecuniary estimation
does not suffice to support an injunction when it
appears that the right to be protected is unclear or is
seriously disputed.

A vested right is one that is absolute, complete and

unconditional; To be vested, a right must have become
a title—legal or equitable—to the present or future
enjoyment of property; There is no vested right to salary
increases; The step increments enjoyed by the Napocor
employees could not have ripened into vested rights.—
A vested right is one that is absolute, complete and
unconditional; to its exercise, no obstacle exists; and it is
immediate and perfect in itself and not dependent upon
any contingency. To be vested, a right must have
become a title—legal or equitable—to the present or
future enjoyment of property. As has been held, there is
no vested right to salary increases. There must be a
lawful decree or order supporting an employee’s claim.
In the present case, because the validity of their
implementation was fundamentally assailed, the step
increments enjoyed by the Napocor employees could
not have ripened into vested rights. In brief, it is seriously
contended that, because they were granted without the
required DBM approval, no vested rights to the step
increments could have been acquired.

A court should as much as possible avoid issuing the

Page 32 of 49
Mani Fraternity :D
 writ, which would effectively dispose of the main case
without trial and/or due process.—While the grant of a
writ of preliminary injunction generally rests on the
sound discretion of the court taking cognizance of the
case, extreme caution must be observed in the exercise
of that discretion. A court should, as much as possible,
avoid issuing the writ, which would effectively dispose of
the main case without trial and/or due process.

Rule 58 - Not found in the book Writ of Injunction to obtain—While the writ of injunction
17.BENITO GOLDING, may be issued to restrain acts of trespass and the illegal
vs. interference with the possession of land, the cases are
HIPOLITO BALATBAT,et.al.
very few when said writ should issue ex parte and before
the defendant is given a hearing; and it should never
JOHNSON, J.
issue when an action for damages would adequately
compensate the injuries caused. The very foundation of
G.R. No. L-11130
October 8, 1917 the jurisdiction to issue the writ of injunction rests in the
probability of irreparable injury, inadequacy of
pecuniary compensation and the prevention of the
multiplicity of suits, and where facts are not shown to
bring the case within these conditions, the relief of
injunction should be refused.
The following are case doctrines cited:
1. That injunction should not be granted to take
property out of the possession and control of one party
and to place it in the hands of another whose title has
not been clearly established by law. Another adequate,
summary and speedy remedy exists for almost every
case.
2. The writ of injunction is one of the special remedies
provided by the Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 190). It
should not be issued except upon condition that no
other ordinary, speedy and adequate remedy is available
to avoid or repair the damage done, or which may be
done by a new violation of the plaintiff's rights.
3. That an injunction for the issuance of which provisions
is made in the Code of Civil Procedure, while it resemble
the interdictal actions of the Spanish procedural law in
some respect, is wholly distinct therefrom and, as a rule,
the circumstances under which, in accordance with the
Spanish law, "interdictos de adquirir, de retener, de
recobrar, o de despojo" were property issued would not
After hearing the proof adduced by the
plaintiff, a judgment was rendered on
the same day ordering and enjoining the
defendants, their agents and
representatives, and all other persons
acting in their behalf, to desist in their
acts of whatever character which
molested or tended to molest the
plaintiff in the peaceful enjoyment of the
possession of his property.
While we find nothing in the record
which would justify a reversal of the
penalty imposed by the lower court for
the violation of the terms of the
injunction, yet, considering the apparent
ignorance of the defendant and
appellant, we are of the opinion that
every purpose of the plaintiff in justice
and equity may be conserved by a
modification of said fine. Therefore, the
judgment of the lower court is hereby
modified; and it is hereby ordered and
decreed that a fine of P5 only be
imposed upon the defendant, and the
costs.
The order of the lower court wais
UPHELD.

Page 33 of 49
Mani Fraternity :D
 justify nor sustain the issuance of an injunction as
defined in said Code.

4. While the writ of injunction may be issued to restrain

acts of trespass and the illegal interference with the
possession of land, the cases are very few when said writ
should issue ex parte and before the defendant is given
a hearing; and it should never issue when an action for
damages would adequately compensate the injuries
caused. The very foundation of the jurisdiction to issue
the writ rests in the probability of irreparable injury, the
inadequacy of pecuniary compensation, and the
prevention of the multiplicity of suits, and where facts
are not shown to bring the case within these conditions,
the relief of injunction should be refused.

5. Injunctions to prevent trespass and the illegal

interference with the possession of land should not be
granted, when the plaintiff's title is in dispute and has
not been established at law, until the question of title is
settled in a proper proceeding brought for that purpose.

6. There are cases, however, where an injunction may be

granted in order to preserve the statu quo of property
until the title can be determined in a proper action. But
even then it should not be granted ex parte. The
defendant should be given an opportunity to be heard.

7. The remedy by injunction is never the proper remedy

to deprive a person of the possession of property. If the
person in possession is in possession illegally there exist
other adequate, speedy and summary remedies —
forcible entry and detainer and ejectment. These
remedies are adequate.

The remedy by injunction is the proper remedy to

prevent repeated trespass upon real property. But the
trespass which will be enjoined must be of such a nature
that an action for damages will not adequately
compensate the loss occasioned thereby.

Rule 58 - Not found in the book Preventive remedies of the courts are extraordinary and The issuance of the preliminary
18.FRANCIS A. CHURCHILL and are not the usual remedies. The origin and history of the injunction against the defendant is not
STEWART TAIT, writ of injunction show that it has always been regarded proper
vs. as an extraordinary, preventive remedy, as distinguished
from the common course of the law to redress evils after
JAMES J. RAFFERTY, Collector of
they have been consummated. No injunction issues as
Internal Revenue, of course, but is granted only upon the oath of a party

Page 34 of 49
Mani Fraternity :D
 and when there is no adequate remedy at law.

TRENT, J. Definition of Injunction

Injunctions, as here defined, are of two kinds;
preliminary and final. The former may be granted at any
G.R. No. L-10572
time after the commencement of the action and before
December 21, 1915
final judgment, and the latter at the termination of the
trial as the relief or part of the relief prayed for (sec. 162).

Any judge of the Supreme Court may grant a preliminary

injunction in any action pending in that court or in any
Court of First Instance.

A preliminary injunction may also be granted by a judge

of the Court of First Instance in actions pending in his
district in which he has original jurisdiction (sec. 163). But
such injunctions may be granted only when the
complaint shows facts entitling the plaintiff to the relief
demanded (sec. 166), and before a final or permanent
injunction can be granted, it must appear upon the trial
of the action that the plaintiff is entitled to have
commission or continuance of the acts complained of
perpetually restrained (sec. 171). These provisions
authorize the institution in Courts of First Instance of
what are known as "injunction suits," the sole object of
which is to obtain the issuance of a final injunction. They
also authorize the granting of injunctions as aiders in
ordinary civil actions.

We have defined in Davesa vs. Arbes (13 Phil. Rep., 273),

an injunction to be "A "special remedy" adopted in that
code (Act 190) from American practice, and originally
borrowed from English legal procedure, which was there
issued by the authority and under the seal of a court of
equity, and limited, as in other cases where equitable
relief is sought, to those cases where there is no "plain,
adequate, and complete remedy at law,"which will not
be granted while the rights between the parties are
undetermined, except in extraordinary cases where
material and irreparable injury will be done,"which
cannot be compensated in damages . . .

Rule 58 - Examples of other cases where injunction/preliminary Definition In the case at bar, respondent sought the
19.THE PHILIPPINE PORTS injunction will not be issued issuance of a writ for preliminary
A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage

Page 35 of 49
Mani Fraternity :D
 AUTHORITY, represented by its
GENERAL MANAGER JUAN O. PENA
vs.
CIPRES STEVEDORING & ARRASTRE,
INC.,
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
G.R. No. 145742
July 14, 2005
Mani Fraternity :D
4. P.D 1818 prohibits the issuance of temporary restraining
orders, preliminary injunctions or preliminary mandatory
injunctions against the execution or implementation of
government infrastructure projects (page 75)
16. Courts should also avoid issuing injunctions which in
effect, would dispose of the main case without trial
(page 77)
of an action prior to judgment of final order, requiring a
party, court, agency, or person to refrain from a
particular act or acts. It is a preservative remedy to
ensure the protection of a party’s substantive rights or
interests pending the final judgment in the principal
action. A plea for an injunctive writ lies upon the
existence of a claimed emergency or extraordinary
situation which should be avoided for otherwise, the
outcome of a litigation would be useless as far as the
party applying for the writ is concerned.
At times referred to as the "Strong Arm of Equity," we
have consistently ruled that there is no power the
exercise of which is more delicate and which calls for
greater circumspection than the issuance of an
injunction. It should only be extended in cases of great
injury where courts of law cannot afford an adequate or
commensurate remedy in damages; "in cases of extreme
urgency; where the right is very clear; where
considerations of relative inconvenience bear strongly in
complainant’s favor; where there is a willful and unlawful
invasion of plaintiff’s right against his protest and
remonstrance, the injury being a continuing one, and
where the effect of the mandatory injunction is rather to
reestablish and maintain a preexisting continuing
relation between the parties, recently and arbitrarily
interrupted by the defendant, than to establish a new
relation."
Status quo
It is settled that the sole object of a preliminary
injunction, may it be prohibitory or mandatory, is to
preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can
be heard and the final judgment rendered. The status
quo is the last actual peaceable uncontested status
which preceded the controversy.
Requisites
For the writ to issue, two requisites must be present,
namely, the existence of the right to be protected, and
that the facts against which the injunction is to be
directed are violative of said right. It is necessary that
injunction in order to prevent the
"cessation of cargo handling services in
the port of Dumaguete City to the
detriment and prejudice of the public,
shipper, consignees and port workers."
However, the factual backdrop of this
case establishes that respondent’s eight-
year contract for cargo handling was
already terminated and its continued
operation in the port of Dumaguete City
was merely by virtue of a second hold-
over permit granted by petitioner. By its
nature, the hold-over permit was merely
temporary in nature and may be revoked
by petitioner at anytime.
Based on the foregoing, it is clear that at
the time of the institution of this suit,
respondent no longer possessed any
contract for its continued operation in
Dumaguete City and its stay in the port
of said city was by virtue of a mere
permit extended by petitioner revocable
at anytime by the latter. Obviously, the
writ of preliminary injunction issued by
the Court of Appeals granted
respondent the authority to maintain its
cargo handling services despite the
absence of a valid cargo handling
agreement between respondent and
petitioner.
SC held that the Court of Appeals erred
in ordering the court a quo to issue the
writ of preliminary injunction in favor of
respondent.
The writ of preliminary injunction issued
by the Court of Appeals was SET ASIDE.
.
Page 36 of 49
 one must show an unquestionable right over the
premises.

Rule 58 - Not found in the book Requisites The CA did not err in ruling that the
20. "To be entitled to a writ of preliminary injunction, the petitioners failed to show a clear and
FLORD NICSON CALAWAG, petitioners must establish the following requisites: unmistakable right that needs the
PETITIONER, (a) the invasion of the right sought to be protected is protection of a preliminary mandatory
vs. material and substantial; injunction. We support the CA’s
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES (b) the right of the complainant is clear and conclusion that the dean has the
VISAYAS AND DEAN CARLOS C. unmistakable; and discretion to approve or disapprove the
BAYLON, RESPONDENTS. (c) there is an urgent and permanent necessity for the composition of a thesis committee, and,
writ to prevent serious damage. hence, the petitioners had no right for an
BRION, J.: automatic approval and composition of
Since a preliminary mandatory injunction commands the their thesis committees.
G.R. No. 207412
performance of an act, it does not preserve the status
August 7, 2013
quo and is thus more cautiously regarded than a mere Calawag’s citation of Executive Order
prohibitive injunction. Accordingly, the issuance of a writ No. 628, s. 1980 and Republic Act No.
9500 to show that the dean of a college
of preliminary mandatory injunction [presents a fourth
exercises only administrative functions
requirement: it] is justified only in a clear case, free from
and, hence, has no ascendancy over the
doubt or dispute. When the complainant’s right is thus college’s academic matters, has no legal
doubtful or disputed, he does not have a clear legal right ground to stand on. Neither law
and, therefore, the issuance of injunctive relief is provides or supports such conclusion, as
improper." neither specifies the role and
responsibilities of a college dean. The
functions and duties of a college dean
are outlined in the university’s Faculty
Manual, which details the rules and
regulations governing the university’s
administration.

The right to education invoked by

Calawag cannot be made the basis for
issuing a writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction. In Department of Education,
Culture and Sports v. San Diego, we held
that the right to education is not
absolute. Section 5(e), Article XIV of the
Constitution provides that "[e]very
citizen has a right to select a profession
or course of study, subject to fair,
reasonable, and equitable admission
and academic requirements." The thesis
requirement and the compliance with

Page 37 of 49
Mani Fraternity :D

Rule 58 -
21.
CLEMENTE F. ATOC,
vs EDGARDO A. CAMELLO, OSCAR V.
BADELLES AND PERPETUA T. ATAL-
PAÑO, ASSOCIATE JUSTICES, COURT
OF APPEALS, CAGAYAN DE ORO
CITY.
PEREZ, J.:
I.P.I. No. 16-241-CA-J
November 29, 2016
Mani Fraternity :D
Not found in the book We have explained that administrative complaints
against magistrates cannot be pursued simultaneously
with the judicial remedies accorded to parties aggrieved
by the erroneous orders or judgments of the former.
Administrative remedies are neither alternative to
judicial review nor do they cumulate thereto, where such
review is still available to the aggrieved parties and the
cases not yet been resolved with finality. Here, it is
evident that the parties aggrieved by the resolution can
avail or may have already availed of other judicial
remedies. Quite significant is the fact that the instant
administrative complaint was filed by someone who is
not a party or privy to the case. As correctly noted by the
respondent justices in their Joint-Comment, Atoc did
not even disclose the capacity in which he brings the
present administrative
Remedy against TRO
The remedy against the issuance of the TRO is
unarguably and by its very nature, resolvable only thru
judicial procedures which are, a motion for
reconsideration and, if such motion is denied, a special
civil action of certiorari under Rule 65. It is the ruling
granting the prayer for the writ of certiorari that a basis
for an administrative action against the judge issuing the
TRO may arise. Such happens when, from the decision
on the validity of the issuance, there is a pronouncement
that indicates gross ignorance of the law of the issuing
judge. The instant administrative complaint cannot be a
substitute for the aforesaid judicial remedies.
the procedures leading to it, are part of
the reasonable academic requirements a
person desiring to complete a course of
study would have to comply with.
The CA did not commit an error in
judgment in setting aside the
preliminary mandatory injunction that
the RTC issued against Dean Baylon.
The preliminary mandatory injunction
was set aside
It is clear that the assailed resolutions
were issued by respondent Associate
Justices in the proper exercise of their
judicial functions. As such, these are not
subject to administrative disciplinary
action. Other than complainant's bare
allegations, there were no evidence
presented to show any wrong-doings or
bad faith on the part of respondent
associate justices.
We have settled the rule that a judge
may not be administratively sanctioned
from mere errors of judgment in the
absence of showing of any bad faith,
fraud, malice, gross ignorance, corrupt
purpose, or a deliberate intent to do an
injustice on his or her part. Judicial
officers cannot be subjected to
administrative disciplinary actions for
their performance of duty in good faith.
Anent the determination on whether the
respondent Associate Justices made an
error in enjoining the decision of the
OMB, the same would be squarely
addressed by this Court the moment the
issue is raised before it in a proper
judicial proceeding.
We cannot make a ruling in this
administrative case on the correctness of
the issuance of the injunction.
Page 38 of 49
 Rule 58 - Not found in the book Under Rule 58, Section 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Petition was PARTIALLY GRANTED.
22.PT&T v. Smart GR 189026 Nov 9, Procedure, the court where the action is pending may
2016 grant the provisional remedy of preliminary injunction.
Generally, trial courts have the ancillary jurisdiction to
JARDELEZA, J.:
issue writs of preliminary injunction in cases falling
within its jurisdiction, including civil actions that are
incapable of pecuniary estimation41and claims for sum
of money exceeding P400,000.00

Exceptions: 1. Congress, in the exercise of its power to

apportion jurisdiction,43 restricts the authority of
regular courts to issue injunctive reliefs (example: Labor
Code prohibitions on injunctions); 2. Rule of non-
interference of courts, having equal rank with quasi-
judicial agencies.

Section 16 of EO 546 provides that, with respect to the

NTC's quasi--judicial functions, its decisions shall be
appealable in the same manner as the decisions of the
Board of Communications had been appealed.

In view of the legislative history of the NTC, it is clear

that Congress intended NTC, in respect of its quasi-
judicial or adjudicatory functions, to be co-equal with
regional trial courts. Hence, the RTC cannot interfere
with the NTC's exercise of its quasi-judicial powers
without breaching the rule of non-interference with
tribunals of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction. In
this case, the NTC was already in the process of
resolving the issue of whether the access charges
stipulated in the Agreement were fair and equitable
pursuant to its mandate under RA 7925 when the RTC
issued the assailed writ of preliminary injunction.
Mediation conferences had been conducted and,
failing to arrive at a settlement, the NTC had ordered
the parties to submit their respective pleadings. Simply
put, the NTC had already assumed jurisdiction over the
issue involving access charges. Undeniably, the RTC
exceeded its jurisdiction when it restrained the NTC
from exercising its statutory authority over the dispute.

Rule 58 - DEFINITION OF PI: It is true that some issues are better

Page 39 of 49
Mani Fraternity :D
 23.Bicol Medical v. Botor GR 214073 [A] writ of preliminary injunction is an ancillary and
Oct 4, 2017 interlocutory order issued as a result of an impartial
determination of the context of both parties. It entails a
LEONEN, J.:
procedure for the judge to assess whether the reliefs
prayed for by the complainant will be rendered moot
simply as a result of the parties' having to go through
the full requirements of a case being fully heard on its
merits. Although a trial court judge is given a latitude
of discretion, he or she cannot grant a writ of injunction
if there is no clear legal right materially and
substantially breached from a prima facie evaluation of
the evidence of the complainant. Even if this is present,
the trial court must satisfy itself that the injury to be
suffered is irreparable.
PURPOSE:
A writ of preliminary injunction is issued to:
[P]reserve the status quo ante, upon the applicant's
showing of two important requisite conditions, namely:
(1) the right to be protected exists prima facie, and (2)
the acts sought to be enjoined are violative of that
right. It must be proven that the violation sought to be
prevented would cause an irreparable injustice.
GROUNDS:
I - Rule 58, Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides the
instances when a writ of preliminary injunction may be
issued:
(a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief
demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists
in restraining the commission or continuance of the act
or acts complained of: or in requiring the perfonnance
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 injustice 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
Mani Fraternity :D
threshed out before the trial court, such
as if the donation to the Department of
Health by the Camarines Sur Provincial
Government contained an encumbrance
for the public to continue using Road Lot
No. 3, or the validity of this donation.85
The Court of Appeals, however, erred
when it completely disregarded the
evidence presented by petitioners,
reasoning out that the question of
whether or not Naga City's evidence
should prevail over BMC's title over the
property was supposedly a factual
matter that should be threshed out in
the trial court.86
By focusing solely on Naga City and
respondents' evidence to determine if
there was prima facie evidence to issue
the writ of preliminary injunction while
the case was being heard in the lower
court, the Court of Appeals
misappreciated the nature of a writ of
preliminary injunction. To reiterate, a
preliminary injunction is an ancillary
remedy issued after due hearing where
both parties are given the opportunity to
present their respective evidence. Thus,
both their evidence should be
considered.
As it is, absent a finding of grave abuse
of discretion, there was no reason for the
Court of Appeals to reverse the trial
court's denial of respondents'
application for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction. Respondents
were unable to present prima facie
evidence of their clear and unmistakable
right to use Road Lot No. 3.
Petition was GRANTED.
Page 40 of 49
 subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to
render the judgment ineffectual.

II - Jurisprudence has likewise established that the

following requisites must be proven first before a writ
of preliminary injunction, whether mandatory or
prohibitory, may be issued:
(1) The applicant must have a clear and unmistakable
right to be protected, that is a right in esse;
(2) There is a material and substantial invasion of such
right;
(3) There is an urgent need for the writ to prevent
irreparable injury to the applicant; and
(4) No other ordinary, speedy, and adequate remedy
exists to prevent the infliction of irreparable injury.
In satisfying these requisites, the applicant for the writ
need not substantiate his or her claim with complete
and conclusive evidence since only prima facie
evidence64 or a sampling is required "to give the court
an idea of the justification for the preliminary
injunction pending the decision of the case on the
merits."

Tan v. Hosana defines prima facie evidence as evidence

that is "good and sufficient on its face. Such evidence
as, in the judgment of the law, is sufficient to establish
a given fact, or the group or chain of facts constituting
the· party's claim or defense and which if not rebutted
or contradicted, will remain sufficient."

Spouses Nisce v. Equitable PCI Bank then discussed the

requisites and the proof required for the issuance of a
writ of preliminary injunction:
The plaintiff praying for a writ of preliminary injunction
must further establish that he or she has a present and
unmistakable right to be protected; that the facts
against which injunction is directed violate such right;
and there is a special and paramount necessity for the
writ to prevent serious damages. In the absence of
proof of a legal right and the injury sustained by the
plaintiff, an order for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction will be nullified. Thus, where the

Page 41 of 49
Mani Fraternity :D
 plaintiff's right is doubtful or disputed, a preliminary
injunction is not proper. The possibility of irreparable
damage without proof of an actual existing right is not
a ground for a preliminary injunction.

EVIDENCE REQUIRED:
However, to establish the essential requisites for a
preliminary injunction, the evidence to be submitted by
the plaintiff need not be conclusive and complete. The
plaintiffs are only required to show that they have an
ostensible right to the final relief prayed for in their
complaint. A writ of preliminary injunction is generally
based solely on initial or incomplete evidence. Such
evidence need only be a sampling intended merely to
give the court an evidence of justification for a
preliminary injunction pending the decision on the
merits of the case, and is not conclusive of the principal
action which has yet to be decided.

WHEN PI IS GRANTED:
upon prior notice to the party sought to be enjoined
and upon their due hearing.

Rule 58, Section 5:

Section 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
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, 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 said 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

Page 42 of 49
Mani Fraternity :D
 accordingly issue the corresponding order.

XPN:
However, and subject to the 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
for only seventy-two (72) hours from issuance but he
shall immediately comply with the provisions of the
next preceding section 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 detemine 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 extended twenty (20) days, including
the original seventy-two hours (72) hours provided
herein.

WHEN PI IS DENIED:
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.

However, if issued by the Court of Appeals or a

member thereof, the temporary restraining order shall
be effective for sixty (60) days 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.

Thus, Rule 58 requires "a full and comprehensive

Page 43 of 49
Mani Fraternity :D
 hearing for the determination of the propriety of the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction," giving the
applicant an opportunity to prove that great or
irreparable injury will result if no writ is issued and
allowing the opposing party to comment on the
application.

On the other hand, a temporary restraining order that

is heard only with the evidence presented by its
applicant is ex parte, but it is issued to preserve the
status quo until the hearing for preliminary injunction
can be conducted,

PI VS RESTRAINING ORDER
(Miriam College Foundation, Inc v. Court of Appeals):
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 perform to refrain from performing a
particular act or acts. As an extraordinary remedy,
injunction is calculated to preserve or maintain the
status quo of things and is generally availed of to
prevent actual or threatened acts, until the merits of
the case can be heard. A preliminary injunction persists
until it is dissolved or until the termination of the action
without the court issuing a final injunction.

The basic purpose of restraining order, on the other

hand, is to preserve the status quo until the hearing of
the application for preliminary injunction. ; Under the
former Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, as
amended by A§S, Batas Pambansa Blg. 224, a judge (or
justice) may issue a temporary restraining order with a
limited life of twenty days from date of issue. If before
the expiration of the 20-day period the application for
preliminary injunction is denied, the temporary order
would thereby be deemed automatically vacated. If no
action is taken by the judge on the application for
preliminary injunction within the said 20 days, the
temporary restraining order would automatically expire
on the 20th day by the sheer force of law, no judicial
declaration to that effect being necessary. In the instant

Page 44 of 49
Mani Fraternity :D

Rule 58 -
24.Morales v. CA GR 217126-27 Nov
10, 2015
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Mani Fraternity :D
PURPOSE OF WPI: (page 52)
It is well-settled that the sole object of a temporary
restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction,
whether prohibitory or mandatory, is to preserve the
status quo203 until the merits of the case can be heard.
They are usually granted when it is made to appear that
there is a substantial controversy between the parties and
one of them is committing an act or threatening the
immediate commission of an act that will cause
irreparable injury or destroy the status quo of the
controversy before a full hearing can be had on the merits
of the case. In other words, they are preservative remedies
for the protection of substantive rights or interests, and,
hence, not a cause of action in itself, but merely adjunct to
a main suit.204 In a sense, they are regulatory processes
meant to prevent a case from being mooted by the
interim acts of the parties.
First par of Sec. 14 of RA 6770 declared ineffective; second
par declared unconstitutional: (pp. 79-81)
When Congress passed the first paragraph of Section 14,
RA 6770 and, in so doing, took away from the courts their
power to issue a TRO and/or WPI to enjoin an
investigation conducted by the Ombudsman, it
encroached upon this Court's constitutional rule-making
authority. Clearly, these issuances, which are, by nature,
provisional reliefs and auxiliary writs created under the
provisions of the Rules of Court, are matters of procedure
which belong exclusively within the province of this Court.
Rule 58 of the Rules of Court did not create, define, and
regulate a right but merely prescribed the means of
implementing an existing right220 since it only provided
for temporary reliefs to preserve the applicant's right in
esse which is threatened to be violated during the course
of a pending litigation.
In addition, it should be pointed out that the breach of
Congress in prohibiting provisional injunctions, such as in
the first paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770, does not only
undermine the constitutional allocation of powers; it also
practically dilutes a court's ability to carry out its
functions.
Of course, the second paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770's
case, no such preliminary injunction was issued; hence,
the TRO earlier issued automatically expired under the
aforesaid provision of the Rules of Court.
The basis of the CA's injunctive writs is the
condonation doctrine.
The CA's March 16, 2015 Resolution which directed the
issuance of the assailed TRO was based on the case of
Governor Garcia, Jr. v. CA234 (Governor Garcia, Jr.),
wherein the Court emphasized that "if it were
established in the CA that the acts subject of the
administrative complaint were indeed committed
during petitioner [Garcia's] prior term, then, following
settled jurisprudence, he can no longer be
administratively charged."235 Thus, the Court,
contemplating the application of the condonation
doctrine, among others, cautioned, in the said case,
that "it would have been more prudent for [the
appellate court] to have, at the very least, on account of
the extreme urgency of the matter and the seriousness
of the issues raised in the certiorari petition, issued a
TRO x x x"236 during the pendency of the proceedings.
Similarly, the CA's April 6, 2015 Resolution which
directed the issuance of the assailed WPI was based on
the condonation doctrine, citing the case of Aguinaldo
v. Santos237 The CA held that Binay, Jr. has an ostensible
right to the final relief prayed for, i.e., the nullification
of the preventive suspension order, finding that the
Ombudsman can hardly impose preventive suspension
against Binay, Jr. given that his re-election in 2013 as
City Mayor of Makati condoned any administrative
liability arising from anomalous activities relative to the
Makati Parking Building project from 2007 to 2013.238
Moreover, the CA observed that although there were
acts which were apparently committed by Binay, Jr.
beyond his first term , i.e., the alleged payments on July
3, 4, and 24, 2013,239 corresponding to the services of
Hillmarc's and MANA - still, Binay, Jr. cannot be held
administratively liable therefor based on the cases of
Salalima v. Guingona, Jr.,240 and Mayor Garcia v.
Mojica,241 wherein the condonation dobtrine was
applied by the Court although the payments were
made after the official's election, reasoning that the
payments were merely effected pursuant to contracts
executed before said re-election.242
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY
GRANTED. Under the premises of this
Decision, the Court resolves as follows:
(a) the second paragraph of Section 14
of Republic Act No. 6770 is declared
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, while the policy
against the issuance of provisional
injunctive writs by courts other than the
Supreme Court to enjoin an
investigation conducted by the Office
of the Ombudsman under the first
paragraph of the said provision is
DECLARED ineffective until the Court
adopts the same as part of the rules of
procedure through an administrative
circular duly issued
therefor;cralawlawlibrary
(b) The condonation doctrine is
ABANDONED, but the abandonment is
PROSPECTIVE in effect;cralawlawlibrary
(c) The Court of Appeals (CA) is
DIRECTED to act on respondent Jejomar
Erwin S. Binay, Jr.'s (Binay, Jr.) petition
for certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 139453
in light of the Office of the
Ombudsman's supervening issuance of
its Joint Decision dated October 9, 2015
finding Binay, Jr. administratively liable
in the six (6) administrative complamts,
docketed as OMB-C-A-15-0058, OMB-
C-A-15-0059, OMB-C-A-15-0060, OMB-
C-A-15-0061, OMB-C-A-15-0062, and
OMB-C-A-15-0063; and
(d) After the filing of petitioner
Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales's
comment, the CA is DIRECTED to
resolve Binay, Jr.'s petition for contempt
in CA-G.R. SP No. 139504 with utmost
dispatch.
Page 45 of 49

RA 8975 -
25.Nerwin v. PNOC 669 scra 173
G.R. No. 167057
April 11, 2012
NERWIN INDUSTRIES
CORPORATION, Petitioner,
vs.
PNOC-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, and ESTER R.
GUERZON, Chairman, Bids and
Awards Committee, Respondents.
Mani Fraternity :D
extremely limited restriction on remedies is inappropriate
since a Rule 45 appeal -which is within the sphere of the
rules of procedure promulgated by this Court - can only
be taken against final decisions or orders of lower
courts,136 and not against "findings" of quasi-judicial
agencies. As will be later elaborated upon, Congress
cannot interfere with matters of procedure; hence, it
cannot alter the scope of a Rule 45 appeal so as to apply
to interlocutory "findings" issued by the Ombudsman.
More significantly, by confining the remedy to a Rule 45
appeal, the provision takes away the remedy of certiorari,
grounded on errors of jurisdiction, in denigration of the
judicial power constitutionally vested in courts. In this
light, the second paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770 also
increased this Court's appellate jurisdiction, without a
showing, however, that it gave its consent to the same.
The provision is, in fact, very similar to the fourth
paragraph of Section 27, RA 6770 (as above-cited), which
was invalidated in the case of Fabian v. Desierto.
Meaning of PI: (page 49)
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 person, to
refrain from a particular act or acts.
Grounds for the issuance of WPI: (page 61)
When it is established that:
(a) The applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the
whole or 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; or
(b) The commission, continuance or non-performance of
the act or acts complained of during the litigation would
probably work injustice to the applicant; or
(c) A party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening,
The Ombudsman contends that it was inappropriate for
the CA to have considered the condonation doctrine
since it was a matter of defense which should have
been raised and passed upon by her office during the
administrative disciplinary proceedings.243 However, the
Court agrees with the CA that it was not precluded
from considering the same given that it was material to
the propriety of according provisional injunctive relief
in conformity with the ruling in Governor Garcia, Jr.,
which was the subsisting jurisprudence at that time.
Thus, since condonation was duly raised by Binay, Jr. in
his petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 139453,244 the CA did not
err in passing upon the same. Note that although
Binay, Jr. secondarily argued that the evidence of guilt
against him was not strong in his petition in CA-G.R. SP
No. 139453,245it appears that the CA found that the
application of the condonation doctrine was already
sufficient to enjoin the implementation of the
preventive suspension order. Again, there is nothing
aberrant with this since, as remarked in the same case
of Governor Garcia, Jr., if it was established that the
acts subject of the administrative complaint were
indeed committed during Binay, Jr.'s prior term, then,
following the condonation doctrine, he can no longer
be administratively charged. In other words, with
condonation having been invoked by Binay, Jr. as an
exculpatory affirmative defense at the onset, the CA
deemed it unnecessary to determine if the evidence of
guilt against him was strong, at least for the purpose of
issuing the subject injunctive writs.
Sections 3 and 4 of RA 8975 states: The questioned acts of respondent also
Section 3. No court, except the Supreme Court, shall constitute gross ignorance of the law
issue any temporary restraining order, preliminary for being patently in disregard of
injunction, or preliminary mandatory injunction against simple, elementary and well-known
the government, or any of its subdivisions, officials, or rules which judges are expected to
any person or entity, whether public or private, acting know and apply properly.
under the government direction, to restrain, prohibit or
compel the following acts:
xxx
b.) bidding or awarding of contract/project
of the national government xxx
xxx
Section 4. 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.
Page 46 of 49
 BERSAMIN, J.: 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.
Prohibition on injunctions under RA 8975 (An Act to
Ensure the Expiditious Implementation and Completion of
Government Infrastructure Projects): (page 73)
A Regional Trial Court (RTC) that ignores the statutory
prohibition and issues a TRO or a writ of preliminary
injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction against a
government contract or project acts contrary to law.
Examples of other cases where injunction/PI will not be
issued: (page 78)
Xxxx judges dealing with applications for the injunctive
relief ought to be wary of improvidently or unwarrantedly
issuing TROs or writs of injunction that tend to dispose of
the merits without or before trial. Granting an application
for the relief in disregard of that tendency is judicially
impermissible ,22for it is never the function of a TRO or
preliminary injunction to determine the merits of a case,23
or to decide controverted facts.24 It is but a preventive
remedy whose only mission is to prevent threatened
wrong,25 further injury,26 and irreparable harm27 or
injustice28 until the rights of the parties can be settled.
A preliminary injunction is an ancillary or preventive
remedy resorted to by a litigant to protect or preserve
his rights or interests during the pendency of the case.
It is issued only when
a.) the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded;
b.) the act sought to be enjoined is violative of that
right; and
c.) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the
writ to prevent serious damage.
An injunction will not issue to protect a right not in
esse, or a right which is merely contingent and may
never arise; or to restrain an act which does not give
rise to a cause of action; or to prevent the perpetration
of an act prohibited by statute. A preliminary
injunction is but 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.

Rule 59 -
1. Arranza v. BF Homes 333 scra 799
G.R. No. 131683
June 19, 2000
JESUS LIM ARRANZA; LORENZO
CINCO; QUINTIN TAN; JOSE
ESCOBAR; ELBERT FRIEND; CLASSIC
HOMES VILLAGE ASSOCIATION,
INC.; BF NORTHWEST
HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION,
INC.; and UNITED BF
HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATIONS,
INC., petitioners,
vs.
Nature of Receivership: (page 85)
Receivership is aimed at the preservation of, and at
making more secure, existing rights; it cannot be used as
an instrument for the destruction of those rights.
Receivership does not divest the HLURB of that WHEREFORE, the questioned Decision
jurisdiction: of the Court of Appeals is hereby
The fact that respondent is under receivership does not REVERSED and SET ASIDE. This case is
divest the HLURB of that jurisdiction. A receiver is a REMANDED to the Housing and Land
person appointed by the court, or in this instance, by a Use Regulatory Board for continuation
quasi-judicial administrative agency, in behalf of all the of proceedings with dispatch as the
parties for the purpose of preserving and conserving Securities and Exchange Commission
the property and preventing its possible destruction or proceeds with the rehabilitation of
dissipation, if it were left in the possession of any of the respondent BF Homes, Inc., through the
parties. 19 It is the duty of the receiver to administer the Board of Receivers.
assets of the receivership estate; and in the
management and disposition of the property
committed to his possession, he acts in a fiduciary
capacity and with impartiality towards all interested
persons. 20 The appointment of a receiver does not
dissolve a corporation, nor does it interfere with the
exercise of its corporate rights. 21 In this case where
there appears to be no restraints imposed upon

Page 47 of 49
Mani Fraternity :D
 B.F. HOMES, INC. AND THE
HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS, respondent.
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:
Rule 59 -
2. Commodities v. CA 274 scra 439
G.R. No. 125008
June 19, 1997
COMMODITIES STORAGE & ICE
PLANT CORPORATION, SPOUSES
VICTOR & JOHANNAH
TRINIDAD, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, JUSTICE
PEDRO A.. RAMIREZ, CHAIRMAN
and FAR EAST BANK & TRUST
COMPANY, respondents.
PUNO, J.:
Mani Fraternity :D
respondent as it undergoes rehabilitation receivership,
22
respondent continues to exist as a corporation and
hence, continues or should continue to perform its
contractual and statutory responsibilities to petitioners
as homeowners.
EXAMPLES OF CASES THAT JUSTIFY THE APPOINTMENT ---XXX--- The assailed CA decision dismissing the
OF A RECEIVER complaint is affirmed. (PETITIONER
A receiver of real or personal property, which is the LOST)
subject of the action, may be appointed by the court
when it appears from the pleadings or such other proof as
the judge may require, that the party applying for such
appointment has (1) an actual interest in it; and (2) that (a)
such property is in danger of being lost, removed or
materially injured; or (b) whenever it appears to be the
most convenient and feasible means of preserving or
administering the property in litigation. (P. 86)
There must be a clear showing of necessity therefor in
order to save the plaintiff from grave and irremediable
loss or damage. It is only when the circumstances so
demand, either because there is imminent danger that the
property sought to be placed in the hands of a receiver be
lost or because they run the risk of being impaired,
endeavouring to avoid that the injury thereby caused be
greater than the one sought to be avoided. (P. 87)
MEANING OF A RECEIVER
A receiver is a person appointed by the court in behalf of
all the parties to the action for the purpose of preserving
and conserving the property in litigation and prevent its
possible destruction or dissipation, if it were left in the
possession of any of the parties. The appointment of a
receiver is not a matter of absolute right. It depends upon
the sound discretion of the court and is based on facts
and circumstances of each particular case. (P. 87)
Page 48 of 49
 APPOINTMENT IF A PARTY OR CLERK OF COURT AS A
RECEIVER
The general rule is that neither party to a litigation should
be appointed as receiver without the consent of the other
because a receiver should be a person indifferent to the
parties and should be impartial and disinterested. The
receiver is not the representative of any of the parties but
of all of them to the end that their interests may be
equally protected with the least possible inconvenience
and expense. (P. 88)

Rule 59 - NOT FOUND IN THE BOOK Sequestration is akin to the provisional remedy of The petition is GRANTED.
3. POTC v. Sandiganbayan GR preliminary attachment, or receivership. Similarly, in
174462 Feb 10, 2016 attachment, the property of the defendant is seized as a
security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be
PEREZ, J.: obtained, and not disposed of, or dissipated, or lost
intentionally or otherwise, pending litigation. In a
receivership, the property is placed in the possession
and control of a receiver appointed by the court, who
shall conserve the property pending final determination
of ownership or right of possession of the parties.

Page 49 of 49
Mani Fraternity :D