76.

      Define a preliminary injunction.[82]

Ans: 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. (s1 r58)

77.      Define a preliminary mandatory injunction. [83]

Ans: A preliminary mandatory injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action
or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a party or a court,
agency, or a person to perform a particular act or acts. (s1 r58)

78.      Can injunction be a main action? [84]

Ans: Yes, injunction, aside from being a provisional remedy, may also be an action
by itself. Jurisdiction over an action for injuction is vested exclusively in the Regional
Trail Court as the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation. (see
also sec 21(1), B.P. Blg. 129). In the main action for injunction, the petitioner may
apply for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.

79.      Distinguish preliminary injunction from final injunction.[85]

Ans: Preliminary injunction is one issued prior to judgment or final order, while a final
injunction is issued if after the trial of the action it appears that the applicant is
entitled to have the act or acts complained of permanently enjoined, I which case the
court shall grant a final injunction perpetually restraining the party or person enjoined
form the commission or continuance of the act or acts or confirming the preliminary
mandatory injunction. (s9 r58) Preliminary injunction is thus provisional while final
injunction is permanent.

80.      Distinguish injunction from prohibition.[86]

Ans: Injunction is generally directed against a person not exercising judicial, quasi-
judicial or ministerial functions, while prohibition is directed against a tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial
functions.
Injunction may be the main action itself, or just a provisional remedy in the main
action, whereas prohibition is always a main action.
Where an action for prohibition is filed, the petitioner may seek the provisional
remedy of preliminary injunction against the respondent.

81.       Distinguish mandatory injunction from mandamus.[87]

Ans: The purpose of mandatory injunction is to compel a party to do a particular act
in order to restore the last actual peaceable uncontested status which preceded the
pending controversy, while mandamus seeks the to compel the performance of a
ministerial duty.
Mandamus is always a main action while mandatory injunction may be a main
action or a provisional remedy. Thus in action for mandamus the petitioner may pray
for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction.
82.      Give some instances when the law bars the issuance of a preliminary
injunction or temporary restraining order.[88]
Ans: Collection of taxes, Labor Dispute, Government Infrastructure Projects, Asset
Privatization Trust, Agrarian reform, Foreclosure by Government Financial
Institution, Conservatorship, Receivership and Liquidation Proceedings Under the
New Central Bank Act.

83.      May the RTC issue a writ of injunction against another RTC order or
judgment?[89] Explain.
Ans:

84.      The residents of Dasmarinas Village, Makati city filed against the NAPOCOR
a complaint for damages with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction and/or temporary restraining order. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin
NAPOCOR from energizing and transmitting high voltage electric current through its
cables erected from sucat, Paranaque to araneta avenue, Quezon city. The plaintiffs
allege that NAPOCOR failed to comply with section 27 of the local government code
requiring prior consultation prior to the implementation of a government project and
that the electromagnetic fields are harmful to their health. They allege that unless the
restraining order is issued, grave and irreparable injury to their health would ensue.
NAPOCOR argues that the court is prohibited from issuing a temporary restraining
order and preliminary injunction against an infrastructure project by virtue of PD
1818. May the trial court issue a restraining order against NAPOCOR?[90]
Ans: Yes, While PD 1818 prohibits any court from issuing injunctions or restraining
orders in cases involving infrastructure projects, the prohibition extends only to the
issuance of injunctions in administrative acts in controversies involving facts or the
exercise of discretion in technical cases. The issues of whether there is a violation of
the plaintiffs constitutionally protected right to health under Section 15, Article II and
whether NAPOCOR had violated Section 27 of the Local Government Code are
questions of law which divest the case from the protective mantle of PD 1818.
(Hernandez v. National Power Corp.., G.R. 145328, 23 March 2006)

85.      In a decision in civil no. 93-1000 which became final and executor, the RTC
of manila ( Branch 21) issued a writ of execution for its enforcement. The sheriff
levied upon certain chattels and scheduled the auction sale thereof. However,
Santamaria filed a third- party claim with the sheriff asserting that the chattels levied
upon by the latter belong to him and not to the judgment debtor. Because the
judgment obligee posted an indemnity bond in favor of the third-party claimant, the
sheriff refused to release the auction sale. Hence Santamaria filed with the RTC of
Bulacan ( branch 8) an action against the judgment obligee and the sheriff for the
recovery of the chattels and seeking to enjoin the auction sale. The RTC of Bulacan
in due course issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the sheriff from
proceeding with the auction sale. The judgment creditor and the sheriff filed a motion
to dismiss stating that Santamaria can no longer file a separate action since he had
already filed a third-party claim and that the auction sale cannot be enjoined since a
court cannot interfere with the judgment of a coordinate court. How should the
motion to dismiss be resolved?[91]
Ans: The motion to dismiss should be denied. Nothing contained in s16 r39 shall
prevent the third-party claimant from vindicating his claim to the property in a
separate action. (s16 r39). There is no interference with the processes of a
coordinate and co-equal court, since the sheriff was improperly implementing the
writ of execution. (Abiera v. Court of Appeals, 45 SCRA 314).

86.       Who may grant preliminary injunction?[92]

Ans: A preliminary injunction may be granted by the court where the action or
proceeding is pending. If the action of proceeding is pending in the OCurt of Appeals
or in the Supreme Court, it may be issued by said court or any member thereof. (s2
r58)

87.       P, a Makati resident, filed a petition for prohibition with the RTC of Makati
seeking to enjoin the department of justice from proceeding with the preliminary
investigation of a syndicated estafa case against him. P applied for a writ of
preliminary injunction to restrain the DOJ from continuing with the preliminary
investigation. Upon the DOJ’s motion the RTC dismissed the petition on the ground
of improper venue saying that the case should have been filed in Manila which has
territorial jurisdiction over the Department of Justice at Padre Faura, Manila. A) Was
the dismissal proper?[93] B) What if P were a pasig resident. Would your answer be
the same?[94]
Ans: a. No the dismissal was not proper
b. If P were a Pasig City resident, my answer would not be the same. The
dismissal would then be proper.

88.      What is the territory in which a writ of injunction may be enforced?[95]

Ans: A writ of injunction issued by the Supreme Court of the Court of Appeals may
be served and enforced anywhere in the Philippines. A writ of injunction issued by
the judicial region to which the RTC belongs.

89.      What are the grounds for the issuance of preliminary injunction?[96]
Ans: A preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established that:
a. the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded
b. the commission, continuance or non-performance of the act or acts
complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the
applicant; or
c. A party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, 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.

90.       Private respondent obtained a P3 million loan from petitioner union bank
secured by a real estate mortgage on their real property. Upon non-payment of the
loan, Petitioner extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage. A week before the expiration
of the redemption period, Private respondent filed an action for annulment of the
mortgage and foreclosure sale and for reconveyance with the prayer of temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the consoliditation of
title by petitioner. The private respondent forthwith registered a notice of lis pendens
on the property. Should the preliminary injunction be granted?[97]
Ans: No, consolidation of title by Petition and the issuance of a new title in its name
will not cause irreparable injury to the private respondent. This is because the
purchaser at the auction sale merely steps into the shoes of the judgment debtor or
mortgagor. Hence the consolidation and issuance of new title to petitioner will not
render ineffectual the judgment in the main case for reconveyance.

91.       ABC cattle corporation is the holder of a pasture lease agreement since 1990
covering 1,000 hectares of pasture land surrounded with fences. In 1992, D was
issued a pasture lease agreement covering 930 hectares of land adjacent to ABC’s.
A relocation survey showed that the boundaries of D’s land extended 580 hectares
into ABC’s pasture land. Thereupon, D removed ABC’s fence and started to set up
his own boundary fence 580 hectares into ABC’s pasture area. As ABC persistently
blocked D’s advances into its property, D filed a complaint with preliminary injunction
to enjoin ABC from restricting him in the exercise of his lease rights. If you were the
judge, would you issue a preliminary injunction? Explain [98]
Ans: If I were the judge I would not issue a writ of preliminary injunction. The
Supreme Court has held that the purpose of preliminary injunction, whether
prohibitory or mandatory, is to maintain or restore the status quo or the last actual
peaceable uncontested status.

92.      What are the requirements for the grant of a preliminary injunction or a
temporary restraining order?[99]
Ans: Verified Application, Bond, Notice of Raffle and Summary Hearing

93.      Give an instance wherein the applicant may be exempted from the filing of an
injunction bond for the issuance of a preliminary injunction.[100]
Ans: In the case of a citizen suit under section 41 of the Clean Air Act of 1991. The
court shall exempt, upon a prima facie showing of the non-enforcement or violation
complained of, the plaintiff from filling an injunction bond for the issuance of a
preliminary injunction.

94.      May a writ of preliminary injunction issue ex parte?[101]

Ans: Never. No preliminary injunction shall be granted without hearing and prior
notice to the party sought to be enjoined. (s5 r58)

95.      May a temporary restraining order issue ex-parte?[102] Explain.

Ans: As a rule, NO. there must be a summary hearing. s4(d) r58 provides that an
application for a temporary restraining order shall be acted upon only after all parties
are heared in a summary hearing which shall be conducted 24 hours after sheriff’s
return of service (if not a multi-sala court) or after the records are received by the
branch selected by raffle and to which the records shall be transmitted immediately.
96.      What are the instances when a TRO may be issued ex parte or without
hearing?[103]
Ans: Great/Irreparable Injury, Extreme Urgency, Grave Injustice and Irreparable
Injury.

97.      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 RTC 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 TRO. Is the TRO valid? [104]
Explain.
Ans: The temporary restraining order is not valid. 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.

98.      What is the period of effectivity of a TRO?[105] Is this period of effectivity

inclusive of non-working days? Explain.
Ans: A TRO issued by executive judge of a multiple-sala court and the presiding
judge of a single-sala court in cases of extreme urgency shall be effective only for a
period of 72 Hours from its issuance.
A TRO issued by a trail court is effective only for a period of 20 days from service
on the party or person to be enjoined.
A TRO issued by the Court of Appeals is effective for a period of 60 days only.
A TRO issued by the Supreme Court or a member thereof shall be effective “until
further orders”

99.      Is the effectivity of TRO extendible?[106] Explain.

Ans: As a rule, NO. Even the TRO issued by the Court of Appeals or a member
thereof is non-extendible. Note however that a TRO issued by the Supreme Court or
a member thereof shall be effective until further orders.

100.  P filed a complaint against B with the RTC of Iligan City. Alleging extreme
urgency, grave injustice, and irreparable damage, P applied ex parte with the
executive judge for the issuance of a 72-hour from issuance. The case was fortwith
raffled to Branch 256 of the RTC. On the 72nd hour and at the conclusion of the
summary hearing in which the parties were present, the RTC judge issued a TRO
effective 20 days from issuance. Was there any defect in the TRO issued?[107]
Explain.
Ans: Yes, a TRO’s validity should be for 20 days only, inclusive of the original 72
hours. Since the original 72 hours had lapsed, the TRO issued herein can be valid
for only 17 days.