Rule 58: Preliminary Injunction

Section 1. Preliminary injunction defined; classes.

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 a person to refrain from a particular act or acts. It may also require
the performance of a particular act or acts, in which case it shall be known as
preliminary mandatory injunction.

Sec. 2 Who may grant preliminary injunction.

A preliminary injunction may be granted by the court where the action or

proceeding is pending. If the action or proceeding is pending in the Court of
Appeals or in the Supreme Court, it may be issued by said court or any
member thereof.

Sec. 3 Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction.

A preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established:

(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 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 wok 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.

Sec. 4 Verified application and bond for preliminary injunction or temporary

restraining order.

A preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order may be granted only

when:

(a) The application in the action or proceeding is verified, and show facts
entitling the applicant to the relief demanded; and
 (b) Unless exempted by the court, the applicant files with the court where
the action or proceeding is pending, a bond executed to the party or
person enjoined, in an amount to be fixed by the court, to the effect that
the applicant will say to such party or person all damages which he may
sustain by reason of the injunction or temporary restraining order if the
court should finally decide that the applicant was not entitled thereto.
Upon approval of the requisite bond, a writ of preliminary injunction
shall be issued.
(c) When an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or a temporary
restraining order is included in a complaint or any initiatory pleading,
the case, if filed in a multiple-sala court, shall be raffled only after notice
to and in the presence of the adverse party or the person to be enjoined.
In any event, such notice shall be preceded or contemporaneously
accompanied, by service of summons, together with a copy of the
complaint or initiatory pleading and the applicant’s affidavit and bond,
upon the adverse party in the Philippines.

However where the summons could not be served personally or by

substituted service despite diligent efforts, or the adverse party is a
resident of the Philippines temporarily absent therefrom or is a non-
resident thereof, the requirement of prior or contemporaneous service of
summons shall not apply.

(d) The application for a temporary restraining order shall thereafter be

acted upon only after all parties in a summary hearing which shall be
conducted within twenty-four (24) hours after the sheriff’s return of
service and/or the records are received by the branch selected by raffle
and to which the records shall be transmitted immediately.

Sec. 5 Preliminary injunction not granted without notice; exception.

No preliminary injunction shall be granted without hearing and prior notice to

the party or persons 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 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. The court shall also determine, within the same period,
whether or not the preliminary injunction shall be granted, and accordingly
issue the corresponding order.

However, 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 shall immediately comply with
the provisions of the next preceding section as to service of summons and the
documents to b served therewith. Thereafter, within the aforesaid seventy-two
(72) hours, the judge before whom the case is pending shall conduct a
summary hearing to determine whether the temporary restraining order shall
be extended until the application for preliminary injunction can be heard. In no
case shall the total period of effectivity of the temporary restraining order
exceed twenty (20) days, including the original seventy-two hours provided
herein.

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.

The trial court, the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Tax
Appeals that issued a writ of preliminary injunction against a lower court,
board, officer or quasi-judicial agency shall decide the main case or petition
within six (6) months from the issuance of the writ.

Sec. 6. Grounds for objection to, or for motion of dissolution of, injunction or
restraining order.

The application for injunction or restraining order may be denied upon a

showing of its insufficiency. The injunction or restraining order may also be
denied, or, if granted, may be dissolved, on other grounds upon affidavits of the
party or person enjoined, which may be opposed by the applicant also by
affidavits. It may further be denied, or, if granted, may be dissolved, if it
appears after hearing that although the applicant is entitled to the injunction
or restraining order, the issuance or continuance thereof, as the case may be,
would cause irreparable damage to the party or person enjoined while the
applicant can be fully compensated for such damages as he may suffer, and
the former files a bond in an amount fixed by the court conditioned that he will
pay all damages which the applicant may suffer by the denial or the dissolution
of the injunction or restraining order. If it appears that the extent of the
preliminary injunction or restraining order granted is too great, it may be
modified.

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

The party filing a bond in accordance with the provisions of this Rule shall
forthwith serve a copy of such bond on the other party, who may except to the
sufficiency of the bond, or of the surety or sureties thereon. If the applicant’s
bond is found to be insufficient in amount, or if the surety or sureties thereon
fail to justify, and a bond sufficient in amount with sufficient sureties approved
after justification is not filed forthwith, the injunction shall be dissolved. If the
bond of the adverse party is found to be insufficient in amount, or the surety or
sureties thereon fail to justify a bond sufficient in amount with sufficient
sureties approved after justification is not filed forthwith, the injunction shall
be granted or restored, as the case may be.

Sec. 8 Judgment to include damages against party and sureties.

At the trial, the amount of damages to be awarded to either party, upon the
bond of the adverse party, shall be claimed, ascertained, and awarded under
the same procedure prescribed in section 20 of Rule 57.

Sec. 9 When final injunction granted.

If after the trial of the action it appears that the applicant is entitled to have the
act or acts complained of permanently enjoined, the court shall grant a final
injunction perpetually restraining the party or person enjoined from the
commission or continuance of the act or acts or confirming the preliminary
mandatory injunction.

Preliminary Injunction (Rule 58)

Nature of preliminary injunction

1. Preliminary injunction is an ancillary or preventive remedy where a court

requires a person, a party or even a court or tribunal either to refrain
 (prohibitory) fom or to perform (mandatory) particular acts during the
pendency of an action. It is merely a temporary remedy subject to the
final disposition of the principal action (Dungog vs. Court of Appeals, 408
SCRA 267). It is issued by the court to prevent threatened or continuous
irreparable injury to parties before their claims can be thoroughly
studied and adjudicated Its sole objective is to preserve the status quo
until the merits of the case can be heard fully (Manila International
Airport Authority vs. Rivera Village Lessee Homeowners Association,
Incorporated, 471 SCRA 358).
2. Preliminary injunction is a preservative remedy for the protection of
substantive rights or interests. It is not a cause of action in itself but
merely a provisional remedy, an adjunct to a main suit (Estares vs. Court
of Appeals, 459 SCRA 604). It 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 (Republic vs. Evangelista, 466 SCRA
544).
3. Section 3, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court provides that a preliminary
injunction may be granted when the following have been established:
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
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 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 (Philippine Leisure and Retirement
Authority, G.R. No. 156303, December 12, 2007).
4. “A petition for a writ of preliminary injunction rests upon an alleged
existence of an emergency or of a special reason for such a writ before
the case can be regularly tried. By issuing a writ of preliminary
injunction, the court can thereby prevent a threatened or continued
irreparable injury to the plaintiff before a judgment can be rendered on
the claim.
“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 to 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 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.
“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 merit of the case, and
is not conclusive of the principal action which has yet to be decided.
“It bear stressing that findings of the trial court granting or denying a
petition for a writ of preliminary injunction based on the evidence on
record are merely provisional until after the trial on the merits of the case
shall have been concluded.”
“The trial court, in granting or dismissing an application for a writ of
preliminary injunction based on the pleadings of the parties and their
respective evidence must state in its order the findings and conclusions
based on the evidence and the law. This is to enable the appellate court
to determine whether the trial court committed grave abuse of its
discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in resolving, one
way or the other, the plea for injunctive relief. The trial court’s exercise of
its judicial discretion whether to grant or deny an application for a writ of
preliminary injunction involves the assessment and evaluation of the
evidence, and its findings of facts are ordinarily binding and conclusive
on the appellate court and this Court. (Sps. Nisce vs. Equitable PCI-Bnk,,
February 19, 2007; Guy vs. Court of Appeals, GR. No. 165849, December
10, 2007).

Main actin for injunction distinguished from a preliminary injunction

(Bar 2006)
1. The main action for injunction is distinct from the provisional remedy
of preliminary injunction. The former is an independent action. The
latter can only exist as an incident to a principal action. (Bacolod City
 Water District vs. Labayen, 446 SCRA 110). The provisional remedy is
called preliminary injunction and does not refer to injunction as a
primary action. Preliminary injunction as a provisional remedy is not
a cause of action in itself but merely an adjunct to a main suit.
(Mabayo Farms, Inc. vs. CA, 386 SCRA 110)
2. The main action for injunction sees a judgment embodying a final
injunction. A preliminary injunction seek to preserve the status quo
until the merits can be heard (Bacolod City Water District vs.
Labayen, supra.). The purpose of the action for injunction is to enjoin
the defendant from the commission or continuance of a specific act,
or to compel a particular act in violation of the rights of the applicant
(Almeida vs. Court of Appeals, 448 SCRA 681, January 17, 2005).
3. An example of a main action for injunction is the action authorized
under Art. 26 of the Civil Code of the Philippines against one prying
into privacy of another’s residence, meddling with or disturbing the
private life or family relations of another and other similar acts.

Purpose of preliminary injunction

1. As a provisional remedy, the purpose of preliminary injunction is to

preserve the status quo or to prevent future wrongs in order to preserve
and protect certain interests or rights during the pendency of the action
(Cortez-Estrada vs. Heirs of domingo/Antonia Samut, 451 SCRA 275,
February 14, 2005).
The status quo is the last actual, peaceable and uncontested situation
which precedes a controversy. It is the situation existing at the time of
the filing of the case. The injunction should not establish new relations
between the parties but merely should maintain or re-establish the pre-
existing relationship between them.
2. When the injunction sought is mandatory, a writ of preliminary
injunction tends to do more than to maintain the status quo because it
commands the performance of specific acts and is issued only in cases of
extreme urgency and where the right of the applicant is clear.

Illustration (Bar 1978)

The NAWASA cut off its water services to X’s residence for the
latter’s alleged failure to pay his water bills for six months. X claims that
he had paid all his water bills as evidenced by receipts. NAWASA claims
the receipts to be fake and so refused to restore its water service to X’s
residence.
 As a counsel for X, what action will you take and why?

Suggested answer:

As a counsel for X, I would file an action for specific performance

and damages against NAWASA and apply for a writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction (Marcelo vs. Del Rosario, 22 Phil. 433). Here, the
action for specific performance and damages is the main action and the
preliminary mandatory injunction is the provisional remedy pending the
judgment on the main action.

Preliminary injunction distinguished from a final injunction

An injunction is preliminary when it refers to the writ secured before the

finality of the judgment. (Sec. 1, Rule 58, Rules of Court).

It is final when it is issued as a judgment making the injunction

permanent. It perpetually restrains a person from the continuance or
commission of an act and confirms the previous injunction (Sec. 9, Rule 58,
Rules of Court).

Prohibitory and mandatory injunctions

1. Injunction is prohibitory when its purpose is to prevent a person from

the performance of a particular act. It is mandatory when its purpose is
to require a person to perform a particular act.

2. In prohibitory injunction, the act has not yet been performed. In

mandatory injunction, the act has already been performed and this act
has violated the rights of another.

3. In prohibitory injunction, the status quo is preserved. In prohibitory

injunction, the status quo is restored and this refers to the last
peaceable, uncontested, status prior to the controversy.

Since a preliminary mandatory injunction commands the performance of

an act, it does not preserve the status quo and is thus more cautiously
regarded than a mere prohibitory injunction. Its issuance is justified only
in a clear case, free from doubt or dispute. When the complainant’s right
is thus, doubtful or disputed, he does not have a clear legal right and,
therefore, the issuance of injunctive relief is proper (China Banking
Corporation vs. Co, G.R. No. 174569, September 17, 2008).
Prohibitory injunction distinguished from prohibition

Prohibitory injunction is a provisional remedy that is directed to a

litigant, not to a tribunal and is issued to require said party to refrain from a
particular act (Sec. 1, Rule 58, Rules of Court). Prohibition is a special civil
action seeking a judgment commanding a tribunal, corporation, board or
officer to desist from further proceedings in the action because it has no
jurisdiction, is acting in excess of jurisdiction or has gravely abused its
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction (Sec. 2, Rule 65, Rules of Court).

Mandatory injunction distinguished from mandamus

Mandatory injunction is directed to a party litigant, not to a tribunal and

is issued to require a party to perform an act to restore the last peaceable
uncontested status preceding the controversy. Mandamus is a special civil
action seeking a judgment commanding a tribunal, board, officer or person to
perform a ministerial duty required to be performed by law (Sec. 3, Rule 65,
Rules of Court).

Stage of proceedings when granted

Preliminary injunction is granted at any stage of the proceedings prior to

the judgment or final order (Sec. 1, Rule 58, Rules of Court).

Court that issues preliminary injunction

1. Preliminary injunction must be applied for and issued by the court where
the action is pending (Se 2, Rule 58, Rules of Court). The term “court”
includes a Municipal or a Metropolitan Trial Court. Where the main
action is within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court, then it is
this court which shall issue the preliminary injunction.
Example: Under Sec. 15 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, the plaintiff in
a forcible entry and unlawful detainer case may, within five (5) days from
the filing of the complaint, secure from the court a preliminary
mandatory injunction to restore him in his possession. Since a forcible
entry case is cognizable by the Municipal Trial Court, the preliminary
injunction sought for in this action must be applied for in the Municipal
Trial Court.
2. If the main action is one for injunction, the Municipal Trial Court cannot
grant the preliminary injunction. This is because an action for injunction
is one incapable of pecuniary estimation and hence, is cognizable by the
Regional Trial Court.
 The basic issue in an action incapable of pecuniary estimation is one
other than the recovery of money (Raymundo vs. Court of Appeals, 213
SCRA 457). An injunction is not instituted primarily to recover money
and thus, fits the definition of an action incapable of pecuniary
estimation.
3. If the action is pending in the Court of Appeals, the application must be
made with the Court of Appeals. If it is pending in the Supreme Court,
then the application must be made in such court. The preliminary
injunction applied for in the Court of Appeals may be issued by the said
court or any member thereof. If applied for in the Supreme Court, it may
be issued by the Supreme Court or any member thereof (Sec. 2, Rule 58,
Rules of Court). This is a situation where a member of the court may
issue a writ of preliminary injunction without the participation of other
members of the court.

Requisites for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction (Bar 2006) or

temporary restraining order

1. The applicable provisions of the Rules of court enumerate the following

requisites for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction or a
temporary restraining order:
(a) There must be a verified application (Sec. 4, Rule 38, Rules of Court).
Absence of a verification makes an application or petition for
preliminary injunction patently insufficient both in form and
substance (Rivera vs. Mirasol, 434 SCRA 315).
(b) The applicant must establish that he has a right to relief, a right in
esse or right to be protected (Philippine National Bank vs. Timbol, 451
SCRA 163) and the act against which the injunction is directed is
violative of such right (Rualo vs. Pitargue, 449 SCRA 121);
(c) The applicant must establish that there is a need to restrain the
commission or continuance of the acts complained of and if not
enjoined would work injustice to the applicant (Borbajo vs. Hidden
View Homeowners, Inc. 450 SCRA 315; Almeida vs. Court of Appeals,
448 SCRA 68; Bokingo vs. CA, G.R. No. 161739, May 4, 2006; China
Banking Corporation vs. Co, G.R. No. 174569, September 17, 2008);
(d) The applicant must post a bond, unless exempted by the court. This
bond, which shall be in an amount to be fixed by the court, is
executed in for of the party enjoined to the effect that the applicant
shall pay to the party enjoined all damages which he may sustain by
reason of the preliminary injunction or the restraining order if the
 court should finally decide that the applicant was not entitled to the
writ or order (Sec. 4, Rule 58, Rules of Court; Bar 2006)
(e) When an application or a writ of preliminary injunction or a
temporary restraining order is included in a complaint or any
initiatory pleading, the case if filed in a multi-sala court shall be
raffled only after notice to and in the presence of the party sought to
be enjoined. The notice shall be preceded or contemporaneously
accompanied by service of summons upon the defendant. Together
with the summons shall be a copy of the complaint and the
applicant’s affidavit and bond (Sec. 4, Rule 58, Rules of Court).
However, where the summons could not be served upon the defendant
either in person or by substituted service or when the defendant is
temporarily out of the Philippines or when he is a non-resident, the
requirement of prior or contemporaneous service shall not apply (Sec.
4, Rule 58, Rules of Court).

(f) 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 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 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.

Quantum of evidence required

1. 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.
2. At the hearing, mere prima facie evidence is needed to establish the
applicant’s right or interests in the subject matter of the main action
 because the applicant is required to show only that he has an ostensible
right to the final relief prayed for in his complaint (Republic vs.
Evangelista, 466 SCRA 544).
3. It bears stressing that findings of the trial court granting or denying a
petition for a writ of preliminary injunction based on the evidence on
record are merely provisional until after the trial on the merits of the case
shall have been concluded. The trial court, in granting or dismissing an
application for a writ of preliminary injunction based on the pleadings of
the parties and their respective evidence must state in its order the
finding and conclusions based on the evidence and the law. This is to
enable the appellate court to determine whether the trial court
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of
jurisdiction in resolving, one way or the other, the plea for injunctive
relief. The trial court’s exercise of its judicial discretion whether to grant
or deny an application for a writ of preliminary injunction involves the
assessment and evaluation of the evidence and its findings of facts are
ordinarily binding and conclusive on the appellate court and this Court
(Sps. Nisce vs. Equitable PCI-Bank, supra).

Notice and hearing (Bar 2001; 1998)

1. A writ of preliminary injunction cannot be issued without a prior

notice and hearing. Under the Rules, “No preliminary injunction shall
be granted without hearing and prior notice to the party or person
sought to be enjoined (Sec. 5, Rule 58, Rules of Court). It cannot be
issued ex parte (Bar 2001).
2. Subject to the rules governing matters of extreme urgency (Sec. 5, 2nd
par., Rule 58, Rules of Court), the application for a temporary
restraining order shall be acted upon only after all parties are heard
in a summary hearing. This hearing shall be conducted within
twenty-four (24) hours after the sheriff’s return of service and/or the
records are received by the branch selected by raffle and to which the
records shall be transmitted immediately (Sec. 4, last par., Rule 58,
Rules of Court).
Where the case is raffled, the period within which to conduct a
summary hearing in an application for temporary restraining order is
not 24 hours after the case has been raffled but 24 hours after the
records are transmitted to the branch to which it is raffled (Bagong
West Kabulusan 1 Neighborhood Association, Inc., vs. Lerma, 452
SCRA 26, February 18, 2005).
Temporary restraining order (Bar 2006)

1. 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 in which the
application for preliminary injunction was made may issue a temporary
restraining order (TRO) ex parte for a period not exceeding 20 days from
service to the party sought to be enjoined. Within the said twenty period,
the court must order said party to show cause why the injunction should
not be granted. Also, within the same period, the court shall determine
whether or not the preliminary injunction shall be granted and then shall
issue the corresponding order (Sec. 5, Rule 59, Rules of Court).
2. The applicant shall file a bond, unless exempted by the court (Sec 4(b),
Rule 58, rules of Court). The rule grants the court the discretion on the
matter of the posting of a bond. This grant of discretion to require a bond
before granting a temporary restraining order, is not however, intended
to give the judge the license to exercise such discretion arbitrarily to the
prejudice of the defendant. Unless it appears that 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 (Universal Motors Corporation vs. Rojas, Sr.,
459 SCRA 14).
3. If the matter is of extreme urgency, the executive judge of a multi-sala
court of the presiding judge of a single-sala court may issue a TRO
effective for only 72 hours from issuance, not service. Within this period
the executive judge shall conduct a summary hearing to determine
whether or not the TRO can be extended to 20 days. The 72 hours shall
be included in the maximum 20 day period set by the Rules (Sec. 5, Rule
58, Rules of Court). When the court is a multi-sala court, the TRO is not
to be issued by any other judge other than the executive judge of said
court (Bar, 2006).
With the exceptions of those provisions that apply necessarily to multi-
sala courts the same rules shall apply to single-sala stations especially
with regard to immediate notice to all parties of all applications for TRO
(Sec. 4, Administrative Circular 2095, September 12, 1995).
4. A temporary restraining order is issued to preserve the status quo until
the hearing of the application for preliminary injunction. The judge may
issue a temporary restraining order with a limited life of twenty (20) days
from date of issue. If before the expiration of the twenty (20) day period,
the application for preliminary injunction is denied, the temporary
 restraining order would be deemed automatically vacated. If no action is
taken by the judge within the twenty (20) day period, 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
(Bacolod City Water District vs. Labayen, 446 SCRA 110).
5. The rule against the non-extendibility of the twenty (20) day effectivity of
a temporary restraining order is absolute if issue by a Regional Trial
Court. The failure of the trial court to fix a period in the temporary
restraining order does not convert it to a preliminary injunction. Where
there is an omission to fix the period, the twenty (20) day period is
deemed incorporated in the order (Bacolod City Water District vs.
Labayen, supra).
Illustration (Bar 1993)
In an action for injunction and damages, the plaintiff applied for a
temporary restraining order (or “TRO”) and preliminary injunction. Upon
filing of the complaint, the court issued a TRO and set the application for
preliminary injunction for hearing.
As the 20-day lifetime (January 3 to 23) of the TRO was about to
expire, the court issued an order dated January 21, 1993 extending the
effectivity of the TRO for another twenty days (January 24, 1993 to
February 13, 1993).
On March 5, 1993, the court, after hearing, denied the application
for preliminary injunction.
Supposing that on January 28, 1993, the defendant committed an
act in violation of the TRO, is he guilty of indirect contempt? Explain.

Suggested answer:

The defendant is not guilty of indirect contempt because on

January 28, 1993, there was no TRO that could be legally violated. The
court (which under the facts is impliedly a Regional Trial Court because
injunction is incapable of pecuniary estimation), had no authority to
extend the TRO for another twenty days. The extension was null and
void. Sec. 5 of Rule 38 is explicit. “... The effectivity of a temporary
restraining order is not extendible without need for 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.”

6. It is improper for a judge to order a hearing on the issuance of a

temporary restraining order where it was not prayed for in the complaint
(Universal Motors Corporation vs. Rojas, Sr., 459 SCRA 14).
7. A status quo order is not a temporary restraining order. It is more in the
nature of a cease and desist order, has no specified duration and does
not specifically direct the performance of an act. It lasts until it is
revoked. Its duration may even be subject to agreement of the parties. No
bond is required for its issuance (Bar 2006).
Illustration (Bar 1998)
(a) What is a temporary restraining order? (Bar 2006)
(b) How does it differ from a writ of preliminary injunction?

Suggested answers:

(a) A temporary restraining order (TRO) is an order to maintain the status

quo between or among the parties until the determination of the
prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction.
(b) A writ of preliminary injunction cannot be granted without notice and
hearing. A temporary restraining order may be granted ex parte 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 in which
the application for preliminary injunction was made may issue a TRO
ex parte for a period not exceeding 20 days from service to the party
sought to be enjoined (Sec. 5, Rule 58, Rules of Court).

Illustration (Bar 2001)

An application for a writ of preliminary injunction with a prayer for

a temporary restraining order is included in a complaint and filed in a
multi-sala Regional Trial Court consisting of Branches 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Being urgent in nature, the Executive Judge, who was sitting in Branch
1, upon the filing of the aforesaid application immediately raffled the case
in the presence of the judges of Branches 2, 3 and 4. The case was
raffled to branch 4 and the judge thereof immediately issued a temporary
restraining order.

Is the temporary restraining order valid?

Suggested answer:

The temporary restraining order is not valid for two reasons (a) The
facts show a multi-sala court. In this kind of court, it is only the
Executive Judge who can issue the temporary restraining order ex parte
(Sec. 5, Rule 58, Rules of Court); and (b) There is no showing that the
 matter is of extreme urgency and that the applicant would suffer from
grave or irreparable injury if the desired temporary restraining order
would not be issued.

Illusration (Bar 2001)

(a) x x x
(b) May a writ of preliminary injunction be issued ex parte?

Suggested answer:

A writ of preliminary injunction cannot be issued ex parte. The rule

is clear. It provides that a preliminary injunction cannot be issued
without a prior notice and hearing (Sec. 5, Rule 58, Rules of Court).

Issuance of temporary restraining order by the Court of Appeals (Bar 2006) and
the Supreme Court

1. A temporary restraining order (TRO) may be issued by the Court of

Appeals or any member thereof. If so issued, it shall be effective for 60
days from service on the party sought to be enjoined.
A temporary restraining order issued by the Court of Appeals cannot
exist indefinitely; it has a lifetime of a non-extendible period of sixty days
automatically expires o the sixtieth day. No judicial declaration that it
has expired is necessary, and, the lower courts, including the Court of
Appeals, have no discretion to extend the sae. A second TRO by the
Court of Appeals after the expiration of the sixty day period is a patent
nullity (Re: Complaint Against Justice Elvi John s. Asuncion of the Court
of Appeals, A.M. No. 06-6-8-CA; Padilla vs. Asuncion, A.M. No. 06-44-
CA-, March 20, 2007).

2. A temporary restraining order (TRO) may also be issued by the Supreme

Court or a member thereof. If so issued, it shall be effective until further
orders (Sec. 5, Rule 58, Rules of Court)

Illustration (Bar 1988)

What is the duration of a temporary restraining order (TRO) issued
by a (i) Regional Trial Court, (ii) Court of Appeals, and (iii) the Supreme
Court?

Suggested answer:

Please refer to the immediately preceding topic.

Nature of an order granting a preliminary injunction

1. The issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction rests entirely within the

discretion of the trial court and is generally not interfered with except in
cases of manifest abuse. The assessment and the evaluation of evidence
in its issuance involve findings of facts ordinarily left to the trial court for
its conclusive determination (Landbank of the Philippines vs. Continental
Watchman Agency, 420 SCRA 624).
2. An order granting a writ of preliminary injunction is an interlocutory
order, not a final order. An interlocutory order does not dispose of a case
completely but leaves something to be done (Bar 2006). The grant of the
writ is therefore not appealable. The special civil action of certiorari is
therefore, the correct remedy (United Coconut Planters Bank vs. United
Alloy Philippine Corporation, 449 SCRA 473, January 28, 2005).

Examples of cases justifying the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction

1. The provisional remedy may be availed of when a petition for certiorari

under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is filed. The filing of a petition does
not interrupt the principal case unless a temporary restraining order or a
writ of preliminary injunction has been issued against the respondent
tribunal or officer (Sec. 5, Rule 65, Rules of Court; Diaz vs. Diaz, 331
SCRA 302). Settled is the rule that to arrest the course of the principal
action during the pendency of certiorari proceedings, there must be a
restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction from the higher court
directed to the lower court (People vs. Almendras, 401 SCRA 555)
Illustration: Defendant filed a petition for certiorari alleging that the
Metropolitan Trial Court gravely abused its discretion in denying his
motion to dismiss and the subsequent motion for reconsideration.
During the pendency of the petition in the Regional Trial Court, the
plaintiff filed a motion to declare the defendant in default for failure to
file an answer to the complaint within the reglementary period. The
Municipal Trial Court, if it grants the motion, cannot be considered to
have committed a procedural error. This is because the period to answer
was not interrupted by the filing of the petition. The defendant should
have obtained a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order.
Illustration (Bar 2003)
A filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila an action for
specific performance against B, a resident of Quezon City, to compel the
latter to execute a deed of conveyance covering a parcel of land situated
in Quezon City having an assessed value of P19,000. B received the
summons and a copy of the Complaint on 02 January 2003. On 10
January 2003, B filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction contending that the subject matter of the suit was
incapable of pecuniary estimation. The court denied the motion. In due
time, B filed with the Regional Trial Court a Petition for Certiorari praying
that said Order be set aside because the Metropolitan Trial Court had no
jurisdiction over the case.
On 13 February 2003, A filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court a
motion to declare B in default. The motion was opposed by B on the
ground that his petition for certiorari was still pending.
(a) x x x
(b) Resolve the motion to declare the defendant in default.

Suggested answer:

(b) The motion to declare B in default should be granted. B failed to

file his answer within the period prescribed by the Rules (Sec. 3, Rule 9,
Rules of Court). The filing of a petition for certiorari did not have the
effect of suspending the proceedings in the case and the running of the
reglementary period. B should have obtained a writ of preliminary
injunction or a temporary restraining order from the Regional Trial Court
when he filed the petition for certiorari (Diaz vs. Diaz, 331 SCRA 302).

Illustration (Bar 1984)

A, a grocery owner, sued B, before a Regional Trial Court, for the
payment of some merchandise. When the sheriff failed to effect service of
summons on B at Morong, Rizal, the address stated in the complaint, the
Court ordered the publication of the summons and a copy of the
complaint in a newspaper of general circulation in Rizal.
As B was actually no longer residing in Rizal and consequently did
not become aware of the collection suit against him, he failed to file his
answer in court. He was therefore, declared in default and a judgment
was in due time rendered against him.
One year after the date of the judgment, a levy on execution was
made on B’s properties.
(a) x x x
(b) What remedies, including provisional ones, if any, would be
available to B and to what forum should he go for relief?
Explain.

Suggested answer:
 (b) An action for annulment of the judgment should be filed with
the Court of Appeals, the action being one rendered without jurisdiction
over B. To enjoin the execution sale, the action for annulment must be
coupled with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction
or a temporary restraining order.

2. Preliminary injunction may be availed of when a petition for relief under

Rule 38 of the Rules of Court is filed. Remember that the petition is filed
after a judgment has already become final and executory. Assuming that
the prevailing party has not yet filed a motion for an order of execution,
the pendency of a petition for relief will not prevent the execution of the
judgment. To stay its execution, a preliminary injunction would be
advisable. Common reason however, dictates that when the petition for
relief is dismissed, the injunction which may have been obtained stay the
enforcement of the judgment is necessarily dissolved.
The availment of preliminary injunction should also apply when an
action an action to annul a judgment is filed under Rule 47 to prevent
the execution of the judgment.

Illustration (Bar 2002)

A default judgment was rendered by the RTC ordering D to pay a

sum of money. The judgment became final, but D filed a petition for relief
and obtained a writ of preliminary injunction staying the enforcement of
the judgment. After hearing, the RTC dismissed D’s petition, whereupon
P immediately moved for the execution of the judgment in his favour.
Should P’s motion be granted? Why?

Suggested answer:

P’s motion should be granted. The dismissal of the petition has the
effect of dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction (Golez vs. Leonidas,
107 SCRA 187). There is no more injunction that stays the execution of
the judgment that has already become final and executor.

3. A preliminary mandatory injunction may be availed of to restore the

plaintiff in his possession in a complaint for forcible entry or unlawful
detainer.
Sec. 15, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides that “A possessor
deprived of his possession through forcible entry or unlawful detainer
may, within five (5) days from the filing of the complaint, present a
motion in the action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer for the
 issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to restore him in
his possession”.

Examples of cases in which injunction/preliminary injunction will not be

issued

1. Under B.P. Blg. 227 amending the Labor Code of the Philippines, a court
cannot issue a temporary or permanent injunction in cases growing out
of a labor dispute. Under Art. 218 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, it
is the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) that issues an
injunction in labor disputes (Sec. 1, Rule X, 2005 Revised Rules of
Procedure of the NLRC).
No temporary or permanent injunction or restraining order in any case
involving or growing out of labor disputes shall be issued by any cort or
other entity except as otherwise provided in Articles 218 and 264 of the
Labor Code (San Miguel Corporation vs. NLRC, 403 SCRA 418; Art 254,
Labor Code of the Philippines). It is the NLRC which may grant injunctive
relief under Art. 218 of the Labor Code (Ravago vs. Esso Eastern Marine,
Ltd., 453 SCRA 381).
The prohibition against issuance of injunction or restraining order in any
case growing out of a labor dispute does not apply when the injunction is
sought by a third person whose property is sought to be levied upon to
satisfy the liability of another person (Penalosa vs. Villanueva, 177 SCRA
78).
2. P.D. 605 bans the issuance by courts of preliminary injunctions in cases
involving concessions, licenses and other permits issued by public
administrative officials or bodies for the exploitation of natural resources.
8. d
Suggested answer: