Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • WPI and TRO

    Uploaded by

    John Evan Raymund Besid
    189 views11 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    189 views11 pages

    WPI and TRO

    Uploaded by

    John Evan Raymund Besid

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 11
    700 ATENEO LAW JOURNAL {vou s2:685 nature s they were in the form of expresily sated conditions imposed on the release of the petitioner. The sheer lack of cases istrative of the Villavcenio and Counca standards, coupled with the restrictive language ofthe Rules of Court on the avalabilty of the writ of habeas cons that seems to refer only 00 “illezal confinement ot detention,” has misled students of the law into believing that, in order to be ented to a wat of habeas expus, the petitioner or person in whote behalf the remedy is sought must be actually confined or detained. "The question this article poses is ths: how many situations of unlawfil resnint on liberty of the kind redrested in Villaienio and Caunca have not been brought before the courts (and probably continue to date) because the victim’ jotherwise meritorious petitions for habeas copus have been ‘preemptell by the reitictive language of the Rules of Court? ‘The author's recommendation is simple. Consistent with Vilavencio and (Cowes, and even Moncypa, the Rules of Court formulation on the availabilty of the writ of habeas erpus should be amended to expresiy sate that it extends to “all cases of unlawful restrain on liberty, whether physical or psychological in nature, which precludes fieedom of ation.” After all the vindication of basic liberties through the application of che government of Jaws and not of men principle cannot remain hidden in the recesses of habeas corpus cues that reach the Supreme Court ‘3h 1997 RULES OF Cv PROCEDURE, rule 102,51 Examining the Writ of Preliminary Injunction “Judge Oxar Binet 1. Irmopuerion, ssn . or Nature axp Poxrose... 703 TL, Grawr OF Pretnany Injunction . 706 IV, Prsxisawany InjuNcriow ¥. Sraus Quo One 709 YV.. RequrteMers F0R THE ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION... 710 VI. Tenporsny RastaaiNinc Oxpex (TRO)... 72 A, When the TRO Takes Effect B. Relevance of Sections 6-9, Rule 58 ofthe Rules of Court ‘VIL ProwtsiTi0Ns ON PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. see AB VIL, Concrusion ar LLINTRODUCTION ‘The Philippine court, as illustrated in most of the Philippine cases, ate genenilly Known tobe cuts of la? and not cours of equity? However, this doesnot prevent the courts from resorting to equitable remeies. The object of an equitable remedy is to make the administration of justice more Complete, by affording relief where cours of law ae incompetent to give it + Presiding Jedge, Branch 148, Regional Trial Court of Makat City. ’63 LLB. Univesity of Sto. Tomas Faulty of Civil Law. The author isa part-time Lecture and Bar Reviewer in Criminal Law of the Atenco Law Sehool where he teaches Cominal Law I and Il, Criminal Law Review, Special Penal Lyws, and Practice CCoort I and Il, He is ako a Profevor and Bar Reviewer in Criminal Law and Remedial Law of the Univenity of Sto. Tomas Faculty of Civil Law, Arellnpo University School of Law, and Lex Review Center. The autr is grate for the research and editing asisunce provided by Ms. Patiin Ann O. Escalon and Mf [Regina Ann L. Nonato of the Ateneo Law ous Gite as 52 Arunno LJ. 704 (2007) 1. BEACK’s LAW DICTIONARY 338 (6d ed. 1990), (I 4 broad sense, 2 court of Jaw means any “daly constitted esbunal administering the ws of the state of ration,” in a narrower sense, 2 “cure proceeding according othe couse ofthe ‘common law and governed by its rales nd principles), 12 lds t 356, (QA cout of equity ia coure “which administers justice and decided controvenies in accordance with the roles, principles, and precedens of equity, Sand which follows the forms and procedure of chancery.) 02 ATENEO LAW JOURNAL vou. s2:701 or to give it with effect.) Courts resort to this kind of relief to promote the spire and habit of fairness and jutnes, such as when they are of the opinion that a payment of damages only is not sufficient for a fir or just settlement of the case4 One such equitable remedy in the form of a court order enforced by the Philippine courts an injunction. ‘An injunction isa wit framed according tothe circumstances ofthe case “commanding an act which the court regards as essential to justice, oF restraining an ac it deems contrary to equity and good conscience.”6 It is an order of a court requiring a person, corporation, or government entity t0 s8op doing something and “to refzin from doing a particular act."7 In relative) sare cases, the court may ise a mandatory injunction, compelling ‘ person, company, or governmental unit to ‘perform a particular ac."* An injunetion\may be an action in itself, brought specifically to restrain or ‘command the performance of an act? or it may just be a provisional remedy for and as an incident in the main action which may be availed of by the parties in order to preserve or protect their rights during the pendency of the principal action.” ‘An injunction may be preliminary or final. A preliminary injunction is “an order granted at any stage of an action of proceeding prior to the judgment or finl order, requiring a party or a court, agency, of a person to ‘efisin fiom a particular actor acts." A final injunction is one issued in a judgment of a ease “perpetually retraining the pary or person enjoined from the commission ot continuance of the act or acts or confirming the preliminary mandatory injunction," thus, making the preliminary {njunetion permanent ‘An injuncsion may algo be preventive or mandatory. A preventive injunction requires a person to “refrain fiom doing a parcular act," while Mateo. i ‘Manila Beoking Corporatio v. Cour af Appeals, 187 SCRA 138, 144 (1990) ‘eauto v. Cuneta, 151 SCRA 570, $74 (1987) 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, rule $8, § 1 i Ser, An Act to Onduin and Insitute The Civil Code of the Philippines [NEW iva. Cone], Republic Act No. 38, a. 26 (1950), 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, rule 39, § 4; Manila Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeal, 187 SCRA 138, 144-45 (999) 10, Cootavco v. Cust of Appea 163 SCRA 122, 1, 1997 RULES OF CWiL PROCEDURE, rule $8, § 1. 13, WG, 1, Mabayo Fam, lnc. Court oF Appeal, 386 SCRA 110, 115 (2003) 27 (1988). 2007] WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 703 ‘a mandatory injunction requires the “performance of a partisular act."*4 A ‘mandatory injunction will only be granted upon a showing that: () the invasion of the right is material and substantial; (b) the right of the complainant is clear and unmistakable; and (¢) there is en urgent and paramount necesity forthe wrt to prevent serious damages. ‘This Article focuses om the nature, purpose, and grant of preliminary injunction together with the issuance of 2 temporary restraining order, The Risles of Court ("Ries") as well as several cases are discused to illustrate important points pertaining to the issuance of 2 preliminary injunction. I. NATURE AND PURPOSE [A preliminary injunction is a temporary order made by a court atthe request ‘of one patty that precludes the other party from doing 2 paricular act until the conclusion of a tal on the merits!® As an ancillary or preventive remedy, a writ of preliminary injunction may be resorted to by a party (© protect or preserve his rights during the pendency of the principal acion."7 Its object, therefore, i to “preserve the status quo until the merits of the ease canbe heard." A preliminary injunction is not a cause of action in itself but merely a provisional remedy, an “adjunce to @ main suit.""9 This concept is lusrated in Mabayo Farms, Ic. v. Court of Appeale® wherein the sole ise tackled was whether or not private respondent is “bound by the wnt of preliminary injunction issued by the tial court." In this case, che “eal court ised a ‘writ of preliminary injunction resraining the defendants or persons acting on. their behalf from entering and cultivating the disputed propery."=* Such ‘writ was alo served upon the private respondent, who wis occupying a portion of the disputed propersy but who was not a party o the original ‘ase. Thos, private respondent fled a petition for ctora’ with the Court of ‘Appeals, contending that he only leamed about the rit of preliminary inyanetion wher he secured a copy of the order.*? He chimed that the injunction prevented him from using his property and that it was in “grave 14. 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, rule 8, § 1. . 15, Bautita and Maghuhatv. Barcslona, et, 100 Phil. 1078, 108: (1950 16. Mebayo Farms, Inc, 386 SCRA at 115 (2002) wy i wd 19, Ii, (ting Lopes v. Court of Appeal, 322 SCRA 686, 691 (200), 20, Mabayo Farms, Inc v Court of Appeals, 386 SCRA 110, 1151002) a1, Id. 20103. 2, 1 at rg ay. Id 04 ATENEO LAW JOURNAL [vou. s2:701 abuse of discretion forthe tal court to enforce the injunctive writ aginst fim since it did not have jurisdiction over him.”™4 The Court ruled that 2 pesion whois nota payin the main si, ke private respondent, “cannot ‘be bound by an anclary writ, such a the wie of preliminary injunction ised againe the defendants”5 “He cannot be affected by any proceeding to which he is 2 stranger." The Cour farther said that in order to make the injuncve writ applicable against private sespondent,petioner should have impleaded respondent a an adiionl defendant in the instant case>? 1tis abo a wel-

    You might also like