RULE 58 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

 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
Meaning of preliminary injunction. a court, agency, or a person to perform or refrain from performing a particular act or acts.
- It is prohibitory if it is availed to require one to refrain from a particular act.
- It is mandatory if it requires the performance of a particular act or acts.
 Its objective is to maintain the prevailing state of affairs of the parties prior to the controversy.
 The use of preliminary injunction as a provisional remedy requires a main action.
- This is because it is not a cause of action in itself but merely a provisional remedy, an adjunct to a main suit and subject to the main
action’s outcome.
- It is a mere preventive remedy and only seeks to prevent threatened wrong, further injury and irreparable harm or injustice until the
rights of the parties are settled.
 A preliminary injunction is merely temporary, subject to the final disposition of the principal action.
- Its purpose is to preserve the status quo of the matter subject of the action to protect the rights of the plaintiff during the pendency of
the suit.

 An application for a preliminary injunction is an equitable remedy, and one who comes to claim for equity must do so with clean hands.
Preliminary injunction as an - It is to be resorted to by a litigant to prevent or preserve a right or interest where there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious
equitable remedy consequences which cannot be remedied under any standard of compensation.
- By issuing this, the court can prevent a threatened or continued irreparable injury to the plaintiff before a judgment can be remedied on
the claim.
 The court teaches that this is so because among the maxims of equity are:
1. He who seeks equity must do equity, and
2. He who comes into equity must come with clean hands
 It is the strong arm of equity, an extraordinary peremptory remedy that must be used with extreme caution, affecting as it does the
respective rights of the parties.
Purpose of Preliminary Injunction  A writ of preliminary injunction is issued
1. To prevent threatened or continuous irreparable injury to parties before their claims can be thoroughly studied and adjudicated
and during the pendency of the action.
 Status quo  There is a need to preserve the status quo in order to protect the rights of the parties before the main action is
- is the last actual, peaceful, and resolved.
uncontested status that precedes 2. To preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard.
the actual controversy, that which  They are usually granted when it is made to appear that there is a substantial controversy between the parties and one
is existing at the time of the filing of them is committing an act or threatening the immediate commission of an act that will cause irreparable injury or
of the case. destroy the status quo of the controversy before a full hearing can be had on the merits of the case.

Grant of a writ of preliminary
injunction; not a judgment on the
merits
 An injunctive writ is not a judgment on the merits of the case.
 It is generally based solely on initial and incomplete evidence.
 It is not a final resolution or decision disposing of the case.
 The findings of fact and opinion of a court when issuing the writ of preliminary injunction are interlocutory in nature and made before the
trial on the merits is commenced or terminated.
- There may be vital facts to be presented at trial which may not be obtained or presented during the hearing on the application for the

Issuance of the writ as subject to
judicial discretion
Define a preliminary prohibitory
injunction.
Define a preliminary mandatory
injunction.
Distinguish Preliminary Prohibitory
Injunction from Preliminary
Mandatory Injunction
Can injunction be a main action?
Distinguish preliminary injunction
from final injunction.
injunctive writ.
- The trial court needs to conduct substantial proceedings in order to put the main controversy to rest.
 The grant or denial of a writ of preliminary injunction is discretionary upon the trial court because the assessment and evaluation of
evidence towards that end involve findings of fact left to the said court for its conclusive determination.
- The reason for the generous latitude given to trial courts in this regard is that the conflicting claims in an application for a provisional
writ, more often than not, involve a factual determination which is not the function of the appellate courts.
- Hence, the exercise of judicial discretion by the trial court in injunctive matters must not be interfered with except when there is
manifest abuse.
 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 doing a particular act or acts. (S1 R58)
 Example:
 If an action to annul a judgment is filed by the plaintiff after the lapse of the period for appeal, he may apply for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction to prevent the trial court from issuing an order of execution of
the judgment.
 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.
- It commands the performance of some positive act to correct a wrong in the past.
 Example:
 If the water company unjustly cuts off the water supply of a consumer, the latter may file an action for specific
performance and damages against the former. At the same time, he may apply for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction to restore the water connection while the principal case is being litigated.
 Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction
o It requires one to refrain from doing a particular act or acts.
o The act has not yet performed because it is restrained or prevented by the injunction.
o Its purpose is to prevent a future threatened injury.
o In prohibitory injunction, the status quo is preserved – consummated acts cannot be enjoined.
 Preliminary Mandatory Injunction
o It commands the performance of some positive act to correct a wrong in the past.
o The act has already been performed and this act has violated another’s rights.
o Its purpose is to restore the status quo and then preserve the said status quo which has been restored.
 Yes. Injunction, aside from being a provisional remedy, may also be an action by itself.
- Jurisdiction over an action for injunction is vested exclusively in the RTC as the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary
estimation.
- In the main action for injunction, the petitioner may apply for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.
 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, in which case 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.
 Preliminary injunction is provisional, while final injunction is permanent.

Preliminary Injunction
distinguished from the main action
for injunction
 An injunction may either be an
action in itself or a provisional
remedy.
- As an action in itself, it is the
main action for injunction,
- As a provisional remedy, it is a
preliminary injunction
Distinguish injunction from
prohibition
 Preliminary Injunction
o It is not a principal action and can only exist as an incident to a principal action.
It is not a cause of action but merely an adjunct to a main suit.
o It does not seek a permanent injunction.
It is designed to require a party or a court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts during the pendency of
the principal case.
o It is an order granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order.
o The hearing on the application for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is separate and distinct from the trial on the merits
of the main case for injunction
o It is generally based solely on initial and incomplete evidence.
o An order granting preliminary injunction is not a final resolution or decision disposing of the case.
The findings of fact and opinion of a court are interlocutory in nature.
Hence, the order of the court may be challenged by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
 Injunction
o It is a principal action and a cause of action in itself.
It can be coupled with an application for a writ of preliminary injunction.
o It seeks a judgment embodying a final injunction.
It is final when it is issued a judgment making the injunction permanent. It perpetually restrains a person from the
commission or continuance of an act or confirms the previous preliminary mandatory injunction.
It is issued when the court, after trial on the merits, is convinced that the applicant is entitled to have the act or acts
complained of permanently enjoined.
o It is granted after the trial of the action of it appears that the applicant is entitled to have the act or acts complained of permanently
enjoined.
The injunction is permanent and forms part of the judgment on the merits and it can only be properly ordered on final
judgment.
o As a principal action, the right and the act violative thereof must be established with absolute certainty to be a basis for a final and
permanent injunction.
o A judgment for a permanent injunction suit should be assailed by a timely appeal.
 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 the main action.
 Where an action for prohibition is filed, the petitioner may seek the provisional remedy of preliminary injunction against the
respondent.
 Injunction applies even if there is no issue of jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion, or other similar acts which amount to lack of
jurisdiction.
- A petition for prohibition applies when the acts or proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person are without or in

Distinguish preliminary mandatory
injunction from Mandamus
What is a status quo ante order?
How is it distinguished from a
temporary restraining order?
Give some instances when the law
bars the issuance of a preliminary
injunction or temporary restraining
order.
excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
 Hence, the basis of prohibition is a jurisdictional issue.
 Preliminary mandatory injunction
o It is a provisional remedy, not a main or independent action.
o It is generally directed against a party litigant although, under the Rules, it may also be issued against a court, agency or person.
o It is issued to require a party to perform an act in order to restore the last peaceable and uncontested status preceding the
controversy.
o It may be directed against any act.
 Mandamus
o It is a special civil action and a main action.
o It is directed against a tribunal, board, officer or person
o It seeks a judgment commanding a tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person to perform a duty which the law specifically
enjoins as a duty either because there was an unlawful neglect of such duty or a person was unlawfully excluded from the use
and enjoyment of an office to which such person is entitled.
o It is directed against ministerial acts.
 A status quo ante order is an equitable remedy intended to maintain the status quo ante, i.e. the last actual, peaceable, uncontested state of
things which preceded the controversy. It is distinguished from a TRO in that it is issued by the court motu propio, that is, there is no
application therefor or the allegations of the pleadings do not make out a case for the issuance of a TRO. Also unlike a TRO, no bond is
required for the issuance of a status quo ante order.
1. COLLECTION OF TAXES
- No court shall have the authority to enjoin the collection of any tax, fee, or charge imposed under the National Internal
Revenue Code (RA 8424).
2. LABOR DISPUTE
- A court cannot issue a temporary or permanent injunction in cases growing out of a labor dispute. (Art 254, Labor Code).
3. GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
- No court, except the Supreme Court may issue a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or preliminary
mandatory injunction against the implementation or completion of government infrastructure projects. (RA 8975).
4. ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST
- An injunction cannot be issued against the Asset Privatization Trust. The functions of the APT have now been taken over by
the Privatization and Management Office of the Department of Finance.
5. AGRARIAN REFORM
- No court shall issue any restraining order or preliminary injunction against the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council or any of
its duly authorized or designated agencies in any case arising from, necessary to, or in connection with the application,
implementation, enforcement, or interpretation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law and other pertinent laws on
agrarian reform.
6. FORECLOSURE BY GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
- No restraining order or preliminary injunction can be issued against a government financial institution in connection with the
foreclosure of any collateral unless 20% of the arrears have been paid after the filing of the foreclosure proceeding.

Who may grant preliminary
injunction?
What is the territory in which a writ
of injunction may be enforced?
What are the grounds for the
issuance of preliminary injunction?
7. EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE
- No TRO or WPI against the extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage shall be issued on the allegation that the loan
secured by the mortgage has been paid or is not delinquent unless the application is verified and supported by evidence of
payment.
- No TRO or WPI against the extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage shall be issued on the allegation that the interest
on the loan is unconscionable, unless the debtor pays the mortgagee at least six percent per annum interest on the principal
obligation as stated in the application for the foreclosure sale, which shall be updated monthly while the case is pending.
8. CONSERVATORSHIP, RECEIVERSHIP, AND LIQUIDATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE NEW CENTRAL BANK ACT
- The actions of the Monetary Board in respect of conservatorship, receivership, and liquidation proceedings shall not be
restrained except on petition for certiorari on the ground that the action taken was in excess of jurisdiction or with such grave
abuse of discretion as to amount to lack of or excess of jurisdiction.
- The petition for certiorari may only be filed by the stockholders of record representing the majority of the capital stock within
10 days from receipt by the board of directors of the institution of the order directing conservatorship, receivership, or
liquidation.
9. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION
- No court below the CA shall have jurisdiction to issue a restraining order, preliminary injunction, or preliminary mandatory
injunction in any case, dispute, or controversy that directly or indirectly interferes with the exercise of the powers, duties and
responsibilities of the SEC that falls exclusively within its jurisdiction.
 A preliminary injunction may be granted / issued by the court where the principal action or proceeding is pending.
- If the action or proceeding is pending in the CA or in the SC, it may be issued by said court or any member thereof.
 If the main action is for injunction, the MTC cannot grant the preliminary injunction.
- This is because an action for injunction is one incapable of pecuniary estimation.
 A writ of injunction issued by the SC or the CA may be served and enforced anywhere in the Philippines.
 A writ of injunction issued by the RTC may be enforced only within the judicial region to which the RTC belongs.
 A writ of preliminary injunction issued by the MTC may be enforced outside of its territorial jurisdiction but within the judicial
region to which it belongs.
 There is no need of a certification by a RTC judge for the enforcement of a writ of preliminary injunction outside of the MTC’s
territorial jurisdiction.
 A preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established that:
a. The applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or
continuance of the act or acts complained of, or in requiring the performance of an act or acts, either for a limited period or
perpetually.
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.
 Interpreting S3 R58, the Court explains that a writ of preliminary injunction may be granted if the following requisites are met:
o there exists a clear and unmistakable right to be protected;

What are the requirements for the
grant of a preliminary injunction or
a temporary restraining order?
May a writ of preliminary
injunction issue ex parte?
Temporary Restraining Order
(TRO)
o this right is directly threatened by an act sought to be enjoined;
o the invasion if the right is material and substantial; and
o there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious and irreparable damage.
a. VERIFIED APPLICATION
-The application in the action or proceeding is verified, and shows facts entitling the applicant to the relief demanded.
b. BOND
- 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 pay 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 the approval of the requisite bond, a writ of preliminary injunction shall be issued.
c. NOTICE OF RAFFLE
- 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 (TSN), the requirement of prior
or contemporaneous service of summons shall not apply.
d. SUMMARY HEARING
- The application for a TRO shall thereafter be acted upon only after all the parties are heard in a summary hearing which shall
be conducted within 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.
- The period to conduct the summary hearing 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.
 Never.
 No preliminary injunction shall be granted without hearing and prior notice to the party sought to be enjoined.
1. It is issued to preserve the status quo until the hearing of the application for a writ of preliminary injunction because the injunction
cannot be issued ex parte.
- By its nature, it could be considered a provisional remedy within a provisional remedy because it is issued to preserve the
status quo for a limited period until the court decides to issue a writ of preliminary injunction.
2. The applicant shall file a bond, unless exempted by the court.
- The rule grants the court the discretion on the matter of the posting of a bond.
- This grant of discretion is not, however, intended to give the judge the license to exercise such discretion arbitrarily to the
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.
3. A TRO is issued to preserve the status quo until the hearing of the application for preliminary injunction.

May a temporary restraining order
(TRO) issue ex parte?
What are the instances when a TRO
may be issued ex parte?
What is the period of effectivity of a
TRO? IS such period of effectivity
inclusive of non-working days?
Is the effectivity of a TRO
extendible?
- For this purpose, the judge under S5 R58, may issue a TRO with a limited life of 20 days from service on the party or person
sought to be enjoined.
- Jurisprudence holds that if, before the expiration of the 20-day period, the application for preliminary injunction is denied, the
TRO would be deemed automatically vacated.
- If no action is taken by the judge within the 20-day period, the TRO would automatically expire on the 20 th day by the sheer
force of law, no judicial declaration to that effect being necessary.
4. The rule against the non-extendibility of the 20-day effectivity of a TRO is absolute if issued by a RTC.
- The failure of the RTC to fix a period in the TRO does not convert it to preliminary injunction.
- Where there is an omission to fix the period, the 20-day period is deemed incorporated in the order.
5. It is improper for a judge to order a hearing on the issuance of TRO where it was not prayed for in the complaint.
 As a rule, NO.
- There must be a summary hearing.
- S4 R58 provides that an application for a TRO shall be acted upon only after all parties are heard 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.
 However, there are exceptional circumstances where a TRO may issue ex parte.
 GREAT or IRREPARABLE INJURY
- 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 TRO effective only for 20 days from service on the party or person sought to be enjoined.
- Within the 20-day period, the court must order said party or person to show cause why the injunction should not be granted
and determine whether or not the preliminary injunction shall be granted.
 EXTREME URGENCY, GRAVE INJUSTICE & IRREPARABBLE INJURY
- 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 judge may issue ex parte a TRO effective for only 72 hours
from issuance but he shall immediately comply with the provisions of S4 R58 as to service of summons and the complaint,
affidavit, and bond.
- Within 72 hours, the judge before whom the case is pending shall conduct a summary hearing to determine whether or not the
TRO shall be extended until the application for preliminary injunction can be heard.
 A TRO issued by the 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 trial court is effective only for a period of 20 days from service on the party or person to be enjoined. The
20-day period includes the 72 hours of the TRO issued by the executive or presiding judge, if one had been issued.
- A TRO issued by the Court of Appeals or a member thereof is effective for a period of 60 days only, counted from service on
the party or person to be enjoined.
- A TRO issued by the Supreme Court or a member thereof shall be effective until further orders.
 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.
 However, a TRO may be renewed or extended on a ground different from the one on which it was first issued.
 - This is because what S5 R58 provides is that the effectivity of a TRO 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.
- The renewal or extension may or may be without hearing depending upon the exigencies of the situation and in accordance
with S5 R58.

What are the grounds for  INSUFFICIENCY

preventing or dissolving a
preliminary injunction?
- The application for injunction or restraining order may be denied, upon showing of its insufficiency.
 OTHER GROUNDS UPON AFFIDAVITS
- 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.
- An example would be where the applicant’s bond is insufficient or defective.
 RULE OF RELATIVE OR COMPARATIVE INCONVENIENCE OR DAMAGE
- The injunction or restraining order may be denied or 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.

When may a preliminary injunction
or restraining order be modified?
What is the procedure for claiming,
ascertaining, and awarding
damages upon the bond of the
adverse party?
 If it appears that the extent of the preliminary injunction or restraining order is too great, it may be modified.
 At the trial, the amount of damages to be awarded to either party, upon bond of the adverse party, shall be claimed, ascertained, and
awarded under the same procedure prescribed for preliminary attachment under S20 R57. (S8 R58)
 In fine, there should be an application for damages filed with due notice to the adverse party and his surety, and the damages shall only be
awarded after the proper hearing and shall be included in the judgment on the main case.

When is a final injunction granted?  A final injunction is granted if after the trial of the action it appears that the application is entitled to have the act or acts complained of
permanently enjoined.
- The final injunction shall perpetually restrain the party or person enjoined from the commission or continuance of the acts or
acts or confirm the preliminary mandatory injunction.

SAMPLE CASES

1. In a dispute between a developer and the landowner, the trial court issued a status quo ante
order directing the developer to post security guards on the property subject of the joint-
venture agreement.
Was the issuance of the status quo ante order proper?
 NO. The purpose of a status quo ante order is to maintain the last
actual, peaceable, uncontested state of things prior to the controversy.
 Here the last actual, peaceable, uncontested status prior to the
controversy was that there were no guards in the premised.
 Furthermore a status quo ante order by its nature cannot require the
doing (or undoing) of acts.

2. Petitioners filed an action for injunction against the DPWH to stop the elevation of the  No. The preclusion under RA 8975 applies only to the issuance of a
 national highway which would cause flooding and other damage to their property. Upon
the DPWH’s motion, the RTC dismissed the case stating that it is without jurisdiction to
try the case. The RTC invoked SEC 3 of RA 8975 which provides that no court, except the
Supreme Court, shall issue any temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction or
preliminary mandatory injunction against national government infrastructure projects.
Was the dismissal proper?
3. 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 the land adjacent to ABC’s. A relocation survey
showed that the boundaries of D’s land extended 580 hectares into 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.
4. An application for a writ of preliminary injunction with a prayer for a TRO 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?
5. P filed a complaint against B with the RTC of Las Pinas City. Alleging extreme urgency,
grave injustice, and irreparable damage, P applied ex parte with the executive judge for the
issuance of a 72-hour TRO. The executive judge issued the TRO effective 72 hours from
issuance. The case was forthwith raffled to Branch 256 of the RTC. On the 72 nd hour and
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?
TRO or writ of preliminary injunction, not to filing of an action
seeking the issuance of a final injunction.
 If I were the judge, I would not issue a writ of preliminary injunction.
 The SC 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.
 Here, the last actual peaceable uncontested status was that before D
removed ABC’s fence and started to set up his own boundary fence
580 hectares into ABC’s pasture area.
 Hence, D is not entitled to a writ of preliminary injunction.
 The TRO is not valid.
 When an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or a TRO is
included in a complaint or any initiatory pleading, the case, if filed in a
multiple-sala court, shall be raffled only after the notice to and in the
presence of the adverse party or the person to be enjoined.
 Here the raffle to Branch 4 was made without notice to and in the
presence of the adverse party or person to be enjoined.
 Hence, the raffle to Branch 4 was invalid and the TRO issued by its
judge was not valid.
 Yes. A TRO’s validity should be 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.