Case G.R. No.

and Facts Issue PRINCIPLE

Date

INTRODUCTION/PRELIMINARIES

ZUNECA PHARMACEUTICAL G.R. NO. 197802 Trademark Infringement case with Whether the decision on the A preliminary injunction, like any preliminary writ and any interlocutory order,
VS NATRAPHARM NOV. 11, 2015 prayer for TRO/WPI. A decision on merits rendered the issues in cannot survive the main case of which it is an incident; because an ancillary writ of
the merits of the main case an appeal on the decision preliminary injunction loses its force and effect after the decision in the main
rendered pending decision on the over the WPI case moot and petition.
appeal of WPI. academic.
CALO VS ROLDAN G.R. L-252 An action for injunction claiming Whether or not the order The provisional remedies denominated attachment, preliminary injunction,
MARCH 30, 1946 ownership and possession of the appointing a receiver was receivership, and delivery of personal property, provided in Rules 57, 58, 59 and 60
land but also later on prayed for proper. of the Rules of Court, respectively, are remedies to which party litigants may resort
receivership. for the preservation or protection of their rights or interests, 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 cannot be applied for and
granted. To each kind of action or actions a proper provisional remedy is provided
for by law. The Rules of Court clearly specify the case in which they may be properly
granted.
Thus, here, it was ruled that a plaintiff will not and legally cannot ask for the
appointment of receiver of property which he alleges to belong to him and to be
actually in his possession. For the owner and possessor of a property is more
interested than persons in preserving and administering it and there would be no
reason to appoint a receiver.
REYES VS LIM G.R. NO. 134241 An action for annulment of Whether or not deposit may The court in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction may validly order deposit of down
AUGUST 11, 2003 contract to sell and a court order to be granted by the court payment in court even if it is not among the provisional remedies provided under
deposit to the court the down during the pendency of the the Rules of Court.
payment paid. action.

RULE 57: PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT

NORTHERN ISLANDS G.R. NO. 203240 A Complaint with an application for
COMPANY, INC MARCH 18, 2015 a writ of preliminary attachment.
VS SPS. GARCIA CA ordered the appointment of a
commissioner and the subsequent
discharge of any excess attachment
found by said commissioner.
Whether the RTC had lost
jurisdiction over the matter
of the preliminary
attachment after petitioner
appealed the decision in the
Main Case, and thereafter
ordered the transmittal of
the records to the CA.
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.
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.
DAVAO LIGHT VS CA G.R. NO. 93262 Recovery of sum of money and
NOV. 29, 1991 contained an ex parte application
for a writ of preliminary
attachment. Attachment
discharged because summons were
served only after the order of
attachment was promulgated and
the attachment was issued.
Whether or not a writ of
preliminary attachment may
issue ex parte against a
defendant before acquisition
of jurisdiction of the latter’s
person by service of
summons or his voluntary
submission to the court’s
authority
Rule 57 in fact speaks of the grant of the remedy "at the commencement of the
action or at any time thereafter." 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.
Writs of attachment may properly issue ex parte provided that the Court is satisfied
that the relevant requisites therefor have been fulfilled by the applicant, although it
may, in its discretion, require prior hearing on the application with notice to the
defendant; but that levy on property pursuant to the writ thus issued may not be
validly effected unless preceded, or contemporaneously accompanied, by service on
the defendant of summons, a copy of the complaint (and of the appointment of
guardian ad litem, if any), the application for attachment (if not incorporated in but
submitted separately from the complaint), the order of attachment, and the
plaintiff's attachment bond.
A hearing on a motion or application for preliminary attachment is not generally
necessary unless otherwise directed by the Trial Court in its discretion. Nothing 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 in Section 1 . . . (Rule 57), that there is no other
sufficient security for the claim sought to be enforced by the action, and that the
amount due to the applicant, or the value of the property the possession of which
he is entitled to recover, is as much as the sum for which the order (of attachment)
is granted above all legal 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."
INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND G.R. 61011 Failure to meet obligation in a Whether or not a writ of A debtor’s inability to pay is not necessarily synonymous with fraudulent intent not
AMERICA VS CA OCTOBER 18, money market placement leading preliminary attachment must to honor an admitted obligation.
1990 to an action for recovery of sum of
be issued upon a complaint
money with prayer for WPA. for collection of sum of
money which were allegedly
fraudulently contracted and
now has difficulty paying.
SPOUSES YU VS NGO YET TE G.R. NO. 155868 A counterclaim for the wrongful Whether or not actual, moral Where there is wrongful attachment, the attachment defendant may recover actual
FEBRUARY 6, attachment/levy of the properties and exemplary damages damages even without proof that the attachment plaintiff acted in bad faith in
2007 of Spouses Yu claiming actual, must be awarded after it was obtaining the attachment. However, if it is alleged and established that the
moral and exemplary damages. established by final attachment was not merely wrongful but also malicious, the attachment defendant
Wrongful attachment was judgment that the writ of may recover moral damages and exemplary damages as well.
conclusively proved. attachment was procured To merit an award of actual damages arising from a wrongful attachment, the
with no true ground for its attachment defendant must prove, with the best evidence obtainable, the fact of
issuance. loss or injury suffered and the amount thereof.
To merit an award of moral and exemplary damages, it must be shown that the
wrongful attachment was obtained by the attachment plaintiff with malice or bad
faith, such as by appending a false affidavit to his application.
SECURITY PACIFIC G.R. No. 144740 A Surety posted a counterbond for Whether or not execution Counter-bonds are replacements of the property formerly attached, and just as the
ASSURANCE CORPORATION August 31, 2005 the discharge of an attachment. may be made on the latter, may be levied upon after final judgment.
V. TRIA-INFANTE The counterbond was executed counterbond even without a Counterbonds are mere replacements of the property formerly attached, and just as
upon. Surety contends that the court approval thereof. the latter may be levied upon after final judgment in the case in order to realize the
attachment on the property was amount adjudged, so is the liability of the counter sureties ascertainable after the
not yet discharged because it judgment has become final. It would be a mere surplusage to require a specific
needs court approval for the order for the discharge of an attachment when a surety has already been held
counterbond posted. solidarily bound with the principal.

WATERCRAFT VENTURE G.R. 181721 WPA issued against a British Whether the allegations in An affidavit which does not contain concrete and specific grounds is inadequate to
CORP VS WOLFE SEPT. 9, 2015 national because it is alleged that the affidavit of merit sustain the issuance of such writ. In fact, mere general averments render the writ
he is flight risk and fraudulently concerning fraud are defective and the court that ordered its issuance acted with grave abuse of
contracted a debt. sufficient to warrant the discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. In this case, Watercraft's Affidavit of
issuance of a WPA Preliminary Attachment does not contain specific allegations of other factual
circumstances to show that Wolfe, at the time of contracting the obligation, had a
preconceived plan or intention not to pay. 
It should be resorted to only when necessary and as a last remedy because it
exposes the debtor to humiliation and annoyance. It must be granted only on
concrete and specific grounds and not merely on general averments quoting the
 words of the rules. Since attachment is harsh, extraordinary, and summary in nature,
the rules on the application of a writ of attachment must be strictly construed in
favor of the defendant the court in which the action is pending.

DM WENCESLAO AND G.R. NO. 154106 WPA issued but assailed because Whether or not the applicant * The applicant is not liable for damages caused by issuance and enforcement of
ASSOCIATE, INC. VS JUNE 29, 2004 allegedly PAWAWI suffered is liable to PAWAWI for WPA if it is not improperly or illegally issued. Damages could be averted if
READYCON TRADING AND damage. damages caused by the counterbond or a deposit is filed. If PAWAWI did not, it must bear its own loss, if any
CONSTRUCTION CORP. issuance and enforcement of on that account.
the WPA. Clarifications by SC:
*Posting of a counter-bond is not tantamount to a waiver of the right to damages
arising from a wrongful attachment.
* 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.

INSULAR SAVINGS BANK VS G.R. NO. 123638 Motion to discharge attachment
CA June 15, 2005 was denied. PAWAWI only paid
half the value of the property
attached because the parties
agreed to temporarily divide
between them the disputed
amount while the dispute has not
yet been resolved.
* Old rules
REPUBLIC OF THE PH VS June 27, 2016 SC previously ruled that a
MEGA PACIFIC eSOLUTIONS G.R. No. 184666 scheme was used to secure the
automation contract with the
COMELEC. Such decision was used
for the application for WPA.
Whether or not the motion
to discharge attachment by
the counterbond filed should
be granted.
Whether or not properties
can be attached for a
corporate debt on the basis
of a previous SC ruling in
which they were not parties
thereto.
Jurisprudence teaches that a writ of attachment cannot be issued for moral and
exemplary damages, and other unliquidated or contingent claim. This is so because
the amount of such damages is not for a party to determine. Its assessment is left to
the discretion of the court, according to the circumstance of the case. The rules
clearly require that the amount of money or damages must be specified.
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.
Fraud may be characterized as the voluntary execution of a wrongful act or a willful
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

SECURITY BANK G.R. NO. 219345 A writ of preliminary attachment
CORPORATION VS. GREAT JANUARY 30, was lifted even though the
WALL COMMERCIAL PRESS 2017 complaint explained in detail the
COMPANY, INC. factual circumstances surrounding
the execution of the trust receipts,
its contents and the subsequent
violation thereof and also alleged
fraud in the performance of the
obligation.
TSUNEISHI HEAVY G.R. NO. 193572 A maritime lien sought to be
INDUSTRIES (CEBU) VS MIS APRIL 4, 2018 enforced through a preliminary
MARITIME CORPORATION attachment but the attachment
before the trial court extended to
other properties other than the
lien itself, such as bank accounts
and real property.
PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL G.R. No. 175587 A WPA was issued for the sole
INTERNATIONAL BANK VS. SEPT. 21, 2007 purpose of acquiring jurisdiction to
ALEJANDRO hear and decide the case because
of the applicant’s mispresentation
that respondent is not a resident of
the Philippines.
Whether or not it was
proper to nullify the writ of
preliminary attachment
issued by the trial court.
Whether a maritime lien
under Section 21 of the Ship
Mortgage Decree may be
enforced through a writ of
preliminary attachment
under Rule 57 of the Rules of
Court
Whether or not applicant is
liable for damages for the
wrongful issuance of a writ
of attachment against
PAWAWI.
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.
Mere violations of the warranties and 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.
A trust receipt transaction is one where the entrustee has the obligation to deliver
to the entruster the price of the sale, or if the merchandise is not sold, to return the
merchandise to the entruster. Security Bank was able to substantiate its factual
allegation of fraud, particularly, the violation of the trust receipt agreements, to
warrant the issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment.
- Fraud in the performance of the obligation must be considered.
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. 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.
When a lien already exists, this is already equivalent to an attachment. The issuance
of a writ of preliminary attachment on the pretext that it is the only means to
enforce a maritime lien is superfluous.
The purposes of preliminary attachment are: (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 actions in personam, such as the instant case for collection of sum of money,
summons must be served by personal or substituted service, otherwise the court
will not acquire jurisdiction over the defendant. 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.
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.
- Damages by reason of the invalid issuance of the writ, survives the dismissal of the
main case for sum of money. Suffice it to state that the claim for damages arising
from such wrongful attachment may arise and be decided separately from the
merits of the main action
CHINA BANKING G.R. No. 158271 Sale of attached property sought Whether or not the PAWAWI It is clear from the foregoing provision that the bond posted by the applicant
CORPORATION VS ASIAN April 8, 2008 (vans, dump trucks, machineries, can proceed with the bond answers only for the payment of all damages which the PAWAWI may sustain if the
CONSTRUCTION equipments, office machines). posted by the applicant court shall finally adjudge that applicant was not entitled to attachment. The liability
DEVELOPMENT should it prevail in final attaches if "the plaintiff is not entitled to the attachment because the requirements
CORPORATION judgment 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, PAWAWI 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.
LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK G.R. NO 203530 PAWAWI argues that it has the Whether or not a motion The PAWAWI does not have the option to deposit real property instead of
VS ERLINDA KRISHNAN APRIL 13, 2015 option to deposit real property praying that bank property depositing cash or filing a counter-bond to discharge the attachment or stay the
instead of depositing cash or filing be deposited in lieu of cash implementation thereof.
a counter-bond to discharge the or a counter-bond should be Once the writ of attachment has been issued, the only remedy in lifting the same is
attachment or stay the granted. through a cash deposit or the filing of the counter-bond. The proximate relation of
implementation thereof. the word "deposit" and "amount" is unmistakable in Section 5 of Rule 57. The Rules
requires the deposit of money as the word "amount" commonly refers to or is
 regularly associated with a sum of money.
FORT BONIFACIO G.R. No. 158997 Third party claimant moving to Whether or not the Sheriff The bond in Section 14 of Rule 57 (proceedings where property is claimed by third
DEVELOPMENT October 6, 2008 intervene. There was no indemnity may be held liable for the person) is different from the bond in Section 3 of the same rule (affidavit and bond).
CORPORATION  bond filed but the sheriff took and seizure and delivery of the Under Section 14 of Rule 57, the purpose of the bond is to indemnify the sheriff
vs. YLLAS LENDING kept properties seized. properties. against any claim by the intervenor to the property seized or for damages arising
CORPORATION  from such seizure, which the sheriff was making 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.
Terceria
PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS February 10, SC already previously adjudged Whether or not the Sequestration is the means to place or cause to be placed under the PCGG's
TELECOMMUNICATIONS 2016 ownership of the sequestered continued sequestration is possession or control properties, building or office, including business enterprises
CORPORATION (POTC) G.R. No. 174462 properties. Thus, a Motion was necessary. and entities, for the purpose of preventing the destruction, concealment or
VS filed to nullify and/or discharge the dissipation of, and otherwise conserving and preserving the same until it can be
SANDIGANBAYAN continued sequestration but it was determined through appropriate judicial proceedings, whether the property was in
denied. truth "ill-gotten”.
Sequestration is merely provisional. Sequestration is akin to the provisional remedy
of preliminary attachment, or receivership. 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.
Sequestration is a conservatory writ, 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. 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. Thus by no means is it
permanent in character. Upon the final disposition of the sequestered properties,
the sequestration is rendered functus officio.

Rule 58: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

PHILIPPINE PORTS March 22, 2017 the CA determined the existence of Whether or not the findings A preliminary injunction is in the nature of an ancillary remedy to preserve
AUTHORITY VS NIASSI G.R. No. 214864 a perfected contract in order to in a petition questioning the the status quo  during the pendency of the main case. As a necessary consequence,
ascertain whether the issuance of a issuance of injunction is matters resolved in injunction proceedings do not, as a general rule, conclusively
writ of preliminary injunction in conclusive determine the merits of the main case or decide controverted facts therein.
 favor of NIASSI was proper. No
further proceedings were
conducted after the Decision of the
Supreme Court relative to the
injunction proceedings had
become final. Notwithstanding
this, an Amended petition was
later granted directing PPA to
execute the cargo-handling
contract in favor of NIASSI for a full
10-year term.
LIBERTY BROADCASTING G.R. No. 205875 Right to frequencies covered by a Whether or not the It is well-settled that the sole object of a writ of preliminary injunction, whether
NETWORK INC. VS. June 30, 2015 provisional authority. The requisites for the issuance of prohibitory or mandatory, is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case
ATLOCOM WIRELESS provisional authority was WPI was complied with. can be heard. They are usually granted when it is made to appear that there is a
NETWORK withdrawn. Motion for extension Whether the motion to file a substantial controversy between the parties and one of them is committing an act or
denied by NTC. Denial sought to be counterbond was correctly threatening the immediate commission of an act that will cause irreparable injury or
enjoined. WPI denied but CA denied. destroy the status quo of the controversy before a full hearing can be had on the
granted it. CA also denied a merits of the case. In other words, they are preservative remedies for the protection
counterbond to dissolve the writ. of substantive rights or interest, 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 acts of the parties.
It is a provisional remedy that a party may resort to in order to preserve and protect
certain rights and interests during the pendency of an action.

SPOUSES DULNUAN VS G.R. NO. 196864 EXF highest bidder exercised right Whether or not it was only To be entitled to the injunctive writ, petitioners must show that
METROPOLITAN BANK & JULY 8, 2015 of possession. WPI was issued to proper to dissolve the WPI. (1) there exists a clear and unmistakable right to be protected;
TRUST COMPANY enjoin any act of possession but it (2) this right is directly threatened by an act sought to be enjoined;
was dissolved. (3) the invasion of the right is material and substantial; and
* period of redemption has not yet (4) There is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious and
expired. irreparable damage.

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY VS G.R. No. 199324 EO 156 banned the importing of Whether or not  is it was "Clear legal right," within the meaning of Rule 58, contemplates a right "clearly
FORERUNNER MULTI January 7, 2013 used motor vehicle. SC upheld its proper to grant preliminary founded in or granted by law.
RESOURCES, INC validity in Southwing ruling. WPI injunctive relief to enjoin
was granted to such EO on the enforcement of EO 156
ground of grave and irremediable
losses and inequitability.
CHINA BANKING G.R. No. 170038 Enjoin consolidation of title. RTC Whether or not WPI may be An injury is considered irreparable if it is of such constant and frequent recurrence
CORPORATION VS SPOUSES July 11, 2012 granted WPI/TRO without hearing granted only on the basis of that no fair or reasonable redress can be had therefor in a court of law, or where
CIRIACO to justify it. Hearing conducted was
only on the omnibus motion.
ROSARIO E. CAHAMBING January 25, 2017 Subsisting contract of lease was
vs. G.R. No. 215807 existing at the time of status quo
VICTOR ESPINOSA and order but PAWIWI entered the
JUANA ANG premises. TRO and WPI was issued.
ZUNECA PHARMACEUTICAL G.R. NO. 197802 SC is asked to determine whether
VS NATRAPHARM INC NOV 11, 2015 the CA erred by issuing a
permanent injunction in a case
which questioned the propriety of
the denial of an ancillary writ. But a
decision on the merits of the main
case has already been rendered.
BORLONGAN VS BDO April 5, 2017 The possession of the subject
G.R. No. 217617 property was acquired through
attachment and later by execution
sale but it is directly put in issue in
a separate case. CA refused to
issue a TRO and/or WPI to stop the
consolidation of BDO's ownership
over the subject property.
Summons was served by
publication after a single attempt
to serve it personally.
SPOUSES PLAZA V. LUSTIVA G.R. No. 172909 CA decision as to the owner of
March 5, 2014 subject agricultural land. Winners
possessed it. The son and daughter
in law of the losing party filed an
injunction and prayed for
TRO/WPI. RTC dismissed the main
action.
LWUA EMPLOYEES G.R. NO. 206808- WPI was granted but the main
ASOCIATION FOR PROGRESS 09 action was dismissed for failure to
(LEAP) SEPT. 7, 2016 establish the existence of an actual
a hearing on motion. there is no standard by which their amount can be measured with reasonable
accuracy, that is, it is not susceptible of mathematical computation.
Whether or not the In this case, private respondent Victor Espinosa had established a clear and
requisites for the issuance of unmistakable right to a commercial space heretofore occupied by Jhanel's
WPI was present. Pharmacy.
Urgency was also shown not just because he would be deprived of his right to collect
rent from Jhanel's Pharmacy but more importantly, it would make doing business
with him risky, unstable and unsound, especially with respect to his other tenants
having existing contracts with the defendant.
Whether a permanentA writ of preliminary injunction is generally based solely on initial and incomplete
injunction may be ordered in
evidence. The evidence submitted during the hearing on an application for a writ of
deciding a case for
preliminary injunction is not conclusive or complete for only a sampling is needed to
preliminary injunction. give the trial court an idea of the justification for the preliminary injunction pending
the decision of the case on the merits. 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.
Whether or not the TRO The sole object of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo until the
and/or WPI should have merits of the case can be heard.
been issued to stop the A writ of preliminary injunction would become a prejudgment of a case only when
consolidation of ownership it grants the main prayer in the complaint or responsive pleading , so much so that
over the subject property. there is nothing left for the trial court to try except merely incidental matters. 
Whether or not a WPI should To be entitled to an injunctive writ, the right to be protected and the violation
be issued 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.
Whether or not the dismissal A dismissal, discontinuance or non-suit of an action in which a restraining order or
of petitioners' principal temporary injunction has been granted operates as a dissolution of the restraining
action for certiorari, order or temporary injunction, regardless of whether the period for filing a motion
VS case or controversy which is ripe prohibition and mandamus for reconsideration of the order dismissing the case or appeal therefrom has
LOCAL WATER for judicial determination. filed with the RTC results in expired.
ADMINISTRATION The action claims 233 employees the automatic dissolution of
DEPARTMENT OF face immediate and outright the ancillary writ of
MANAGEMENT dismissal from service. preliminary injunction issued
by the same court.
AGOO RICE MILL CORP G.R. No. 173036 Foreclosure because of default of a Whether or not injunction An injunction may either be an action in itself or a provisional remedy. As an action
VS Sept. 26, 2012 loan obligation with a bank sought should be granted in itself, it is a main action for injunction and, as a provisional remedy, it is a
LANDBANK to be enjoined but the foreclosure preliminary injunction.
was already held. Claims right to
loan restructuring.
REPUBLIC VS EVANGELISTA G.R. No. 156015. WPI issued against treasure Whether or not the issuance It is crystal clear that at the hearing for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
August 11, 2005 hunting and diggings on the ground of WPI is justified injunction, mere prima facie  evidence is needed to establish the applicant’s rights or
of right to peaceful possession of interests in the subject matter of the main action. It is not required that the
land pendent lite. 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. 
EVY CONSTRUCTION AND October 11, 2017 Application for WPI was denied in Whether or not there is The application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction may be denied in
DEVELOPMENT G.R. No. 207938 the same summary proceeding as denial of due process when the same summary hearing as the application for the issuance of the temporary
CORPORATION the denial of its application for a an application for WPI is restraining order if the applicant fails to establish requisites for the entitlement of
vs. TRO. The applicant did accept that denied in the same the writ. Petitioner cannot insist on a separate hearing for the application for
VALIANT ROLL FORMING its application would be submitted proceeding as its application preliminary injunction, considering that it accepted that its application would be
SALES CORPORATION for decision without the for TRO. submitted for decision without the presentation of its witness. Thus, there can be no
presentation of its witness. denial of due process if the party alleging it has already been granted an opportunity
to be heard.

LAND BANK OF THE PH G.R. No. 182758 A SC decision granted a WPI Whether or not the cash The purpose of the injunction bond is to protect the defendant against loss or
VS May 30, 2011 enjoining an arrest affirming an bond maybe withdrawn damage by reason of the injunction in case the court finally decides that the plaintiff
HEIRS OF LISTANA RTC grant. But the RTC’s order was was not entitled to it, and the bond is usually conditioned accordingly.
conditioned upon posting of bond.
LBP seeks to withdraw the bond
pending final determination of the
amount of just compensation for
the property.
LIM VS CA G.R. NO. 190314 TRO/WPI DENIED praying that the Whether or not the denial of To be entitled to an injunctive writ, the applicant must show that there exists a right
JULY 8, 2015 bank cease and desist from WPI is proper to be protected which is directly threatened by an act sought to be enjoined.
conducting the extrajudicial Furthermore, there must be a showing that the invasion of the right is material and
foreclosure of its properties which substantial, and that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to
 were already sold. They only claim
that debts would have been paid
had the bank not imposed
astronomical interests on its loans.
BONCODIN VS NAT’L POWER G.R. NO. 162716 WPI was issued on the ground of
CORPORATION EMPLOYEES SEPT. 27, 2006 alleged nullity of the memorandum
CONSOLIDATED UNION and auditor suspension order to
the salary step increments which
were claimed to be vested rights.
* There was a resolution issued
precisely to rectify the previously
issued resolution and circular.
GOLDING VS BALATBAT G.R. No. L-11130 Plaintiff prayed for perpetual and
October 8, 1917 temporary injunction claiming
ownership and possession of the
land and that the defendant is a
trespasser.
prevent serious damage.
Injunctive relief is resorted to only when there is a pressing necessity to avoid
injurious consequences that cannot be redressed under any standard of
compensation. Injunction will not issue to protect a right not in esse, which is merely
contingent, and which may never arise, or to restrain an act which does not give rise
to a cause of action.
Whether or not injunctive A court should, as much as possible, avoid issuing the writ, which would effectively
order was not properly dispose of the main case without trial and/or due process.
issued By issuing a writ premised on the sole justification of the alleged nullity of the order,
the trial court in effect sustained respondent's claim that petitioner and Auditor
Cabibihan had exceeded their authority in ordering the suspension of the
implementation of the step increments; and that the suspension was patently
invalid or, at the very least, that the memorandum and circular were of doubtful
validity. Thus, the lower court prejudged the main case and reversed the rule on the
burden of proof, because it assumed to be true the very proposition that
respondent-complainant in the RTC was duty-bound to prove in the first place
Whether or not injunction The Supreme Court laid down the following observations in granting injunctions for
was the proper remedy for the purpose of obtaining possession of land:
the purpose of preventing a 1. That injunction should not be granted to take property out of the possession
repetition of said illegal acts. 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 justify nor sustain the issuance of an injunction as
defined in said Code;
4. 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. 

CHURCHILL VS RAFFERTY G.R. No. L-10572 Judgment perpetually restrains and
DEC. 21, 1915 prohibits collecting and enforcing
annual tax. 2 provisions of law
expressly forbids the use of an
injunction to stay the collection of
any internal revenue tax; the
second provides a remedy for any
wrong in connection with such
taxes, and this remedy was
intended to be exclusive,
thereby /precluding the remedy by
injunction
PPA VS PIER 8 ARRASTRE and G.R. No. 147861 WPI was issued against PPA’s
STEVEDORING SERVICES NOV. 18, 2005 takeover of port services ousting
operators of several arrastre and
stevedoring services from their
respective piers who were
occupying in a mere hold over
capacity. There is a law which
proscribes court injunctions on
government projects.
CALAWAG VS UP VISAYAS G.R. No. 207412 WPMI was issued against Dean to
August 7, 2013 approve and constitute the thesis
committees and approve their
thesis titles. But it was dissolved.
ATOC VS BADELLES I.P.I. NO. 16-241- TRO/WPI was granted by CA to stay
CA-J the implementation of a finding of
NOV 29, 2016 grave misconduct. An
administrative complaint against
the CA justices were filed to disbar
them.
PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH G.R. NO. 189026 TRO was issued. PAWIWI claims
TELEPHONE CORPORATION NOV 9, 2016 that WPI issued by the RTC against
VS SMART INC., NTC constitutes interference with a
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.
Whether or not courts The inhibition applies to all internal revenue taxes imposes, or authorized to be
cannot curtail collection of imposed, by Act No. 2339. And, furthermore, the mere fact that a tax is illegal, or
taxes through injunction that the law, by virtue of which it is imposed, is unconstitutional, does not authorize
a court of equity to restrain its collection by injunction.  There must be a further
showing that there are special circumstances which bring the case under some well
recognized head of equity jurisprudence, such as that irreparable injury, multiplicity
of suits, or a cloud upon title to real estate will result, and also that there is, as we
have indicated, no adequate remedy at law.
Whether or not the WPI Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1818, provides that "no court shall have jurisdiction to
against PPA’s takeover must issue any restraining order, preliminary injunction, or preliminary mandatory
be lifted injunction in any case, dispute, or controversy involving…any public utility operated
by the government, including among others public utilities for the transport of the
goods or commodities, stevedoring and arrastre contracts.
Whether or not the The issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction presents a fourth
dissolution of WPMI was requirement: it is justified only in a clear case, free from doubt or dispute. When
proper 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 improper.
Whether or not the Here, it is evident that the parties aggrieved by the resolution can avail or may have
propriety of the issuance of already availed of other judicial remedies. The remedy against the issuance of the
TRO can be addressed in the TRO is unarguably and by its very nature, resolvable only thru judicial procedures
administrative case which are, a motion for reconsideration and, if such motion is denied, a special civil
action of certiorari under Rule 65.
Whether or not the RTC In view of the legislative history of the NTC, it is clear that Congress intended NTC, in
exceeded its jurisdiction respect of its quasi-judicial or adjudicatory functions, to be co-equal with regional
when it restrained the NTC trial courts. Hence, the RTC cannot interfere with the NTC's exercise of its quasi-
COMMUNICATIONS co-equal body.
Any agreement on access charges
must be submitted to NTC.
BICOL MEDICAL CENTER VS October 4, 2017 SP authorized dismantling of Gate
BOTOR G.R. No. 214073 by mayor but instead filed a WPI.
WPI denied by RTC but granted by
CA. TRO was granted against CA
decision by SC.
MORALES VS CA G.R. Nos. OMB decision and preventive
217126-27 suspension order against Binay
November 10, TRO’ed by CA. The Ombudsman
2015 has been adamant that the CA has
no jurisdiction to issue any
provisional injunctive writ against
her office to enjoin its preventive
suspension orders. As basis, she
invokes the first paragraph of
Section 14, RA 6770 in conjunction
with her office's independence
under the 1987 Constitution.
* this is the case that abandoned
the condonation doctrine
NERWIN INDUSTRIES G.R. NO. 167057 Seeks to enjoin bidding out by
CORPORATION VS PNOC- APRIL 11, 2012 respondents of the O-ILAW Project.
from exercising its statutory judicial powers without breaching the rule of non-interference with tribunals of
authority over the dispute. concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction. 
Generally, trial courts have the ancillary jurisdiction to issue writs of preliminary
injunction in cases falling within its jurisdiction, including civil actions that are
incapable of pecuniary estimation and claims for sum of money exceeding
P400,000.00, among others. There are, however, exceptions to this rule, such as
when Congress, in the exercise of its power to apportion jurisdiction, restricts the
authority of regular courts to issue injunctive reliefs. A well-recognized exception is
that courts could not interfere with the judgments, orders, or decrees of a court of
concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction. This rule of non-interference applies not only
to courts of law having equal rank but also to quasi-judicial agencies statutorily at
par with such courts.
Whether or not the CA erred Writs of preliminary injunction are granted only upon prior notice to the party
in directing the RTC to issue sought to be enjoined and upon their due hearing. Rule 58 requires "a full and
a writ of preliminary comprehensive hearing for the determination of the propriety of the issuance of a
injunction on the closure of writ of preliminary injunction. On the other hand, a temporary restraining order that
Road Lot No. 3. is heard only with the evidence presented by its applicant is ex parte.
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. 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
Whether or not the CA has With Congress interfering with matters of procedure (through passing the first
subject matter jurisdiction to paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770) without the Court’s consent thereto, it remains
issue a TRO and/or WPI that the CA had the authority to issue the questioned injunctive writs enjoining the
enjoining the implementation of the preventive suspension order against Binay, Jr.
implementation of a
preventive suspension order
issued by the Ombudsman
Whether or not the case No court, except the Supreme Court, shall issue any temporary restraining order,
should be dismissed on the preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction against the government,
ENERGY DEVT CORP TRO WPPI was issued despite RA
8975 which prohibits injunctions
and TRO against government
projects.
ARRANZA VS BF HOMES, INC G.R. No. 131683 SEC placed respondents in
June 19, 2000 receivership. A complaint was filed
against BF Home enforce rights as
purchasers of subdivision lots as
regards rights of way, water, open
spaces, road and perimeter wall
repairs, and security. It is the
contention of
respondent inasmuch as it is under
receivership, the "subject matter of
the case is one exclusively within
the jurisdiction of the SEC.
COMMODITIES STORAGE VS G.R. No. 125008 RTC ordered receivership and
CA June 19, 1997 appointed a representative of
petitioners. CA found grave abuse
of discretion by RTC and dissolved
the receivership
POTC VS SANDIGANBAYAN G.R. NO. 174462 The 34.9% ownership of the Whether or not continued
FEB 10, 2016 sequestered property has been sequestration is necessary
finally adjudged; the ultimate
purpose of sequestration was
already accomplished when the
ownership thereof was adjudged to
the government by this Court in RP
vs SB.
basis of RA 8975 prohibiting
the issuance of TRO and PI,
except if issued by the
Supreme Court on
Government project.
RULE 59: RECEIVERSHIP
Whether or not it is HLURB
or SEC who has jurisdiction
over a corporation under
receivership.
Whether or not the
appointment of receiver was
tainted with GAOD
or any of its subdivisions, officials, or any person or entity, whether public or private,
acting under the government’s direction, to restrain, prohibit or compel the
following acts:
(b) Bidding or awarding of contract/project of the national government as defined
under Section 2 hereof;
Thus, there is nothing from the law or jurisprudence, or even from the facts of the
case, that would justify respondent Judge’s blatant disregard of a "simple,
comprehensible and unequivocal mandate (of PD 1818) prohibiting the issuance of
injunctive writs relative to government infrastructure projects
Being a mere provisional remedy, the receivership in Rule 59 presupposes that there
is a principal action or proceeding and that the property or fund subject of such
action or proceeding requires its preservation. The receivership provided in Rule 59
covers various situations which require that the appointment of a receiver is the
most convenient and feasible means of preserving, administering, or disposing of
the property in litigation.
A receiver involves the appointment 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.
Sequestration is akin to the provisional remedy of preliminary attachment, or
receivership. 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. In sequestration,
the same principle holds true. 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.