Other Important Principles

1. Injunction can be an action in itself and is a main action in this sense. The provisional remedy is
preliminary injunction.

2. Preliminary mandatory injunction is available in a suit for forcible entry to restore the plaintiff in his
possession (See Art. 539 of the Civil Code; also Sec. 15, Rule 70, Rules of Court). It is also available in
unlawful detainer actions pursuant to Sec. 15, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. A finding that the applicant
for preliminary injunction may suffer damage not capable of pecuniary estimation is not sufficient to
support an injunction (Manila International Airport Authority vs. Court of Appeals, 397 SCRA 348,
February 2, 2002).

3. A writ of preliminary injunction is auxiliary to, an adjunct of, and subject to the outcome of the main
case, thus, a writ of preliminary injunction is deemed lifted upon dismissal of the main case, any appeal
therefrom notwithstanding. (Arevalo v. Planters Development Bank, 670 SCRA 252)

4. The status quo is the last actual peaceable uncontested status which preceded the controversy. The
injuctive writ may only be resorted to by a litigant for the preservation and protection of his rights or
interests during the pendency of the principal action. The grant or denial of an application for a writ of
preliminary injunction rests upon the sound discretion of the issuing court (United Coconut Planters
Corporation, G.R. No. 152238, January 28, 2005, 449 SCRA 473).

5. The issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is considered an "extraordinary event," being a

''strong arm of equity or a transcendent remedy." Thus, the power to issue the writ "should be exercised
sparingly, with utmost care, and with great caution and deliberation." No injunctive writ could be issued
pending a final determination of petitioner's actual and existing right over the property. Else, the grant
of an injunctive writ could operate as a prejudgment of the main case. (Evy Construction and
Development Corporation vs. Valiant Roll Forming Sales Corporation, G.R. No. 207938, October 11,
2017)

6. To be entitled to an injunctive writ, the right to be protected and the violation 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. After all, a writ of preliminary injunction is issued to preserve the status quo or the
last actual, peaceable, and uncontested situation which precedes a controversy. (Spouses Laus vs.
Optimum Security Services, Inc., G.R. No. 208343, February 03, 2016)

7. There is no question that as a provisional remedy to prevent irreparable injury pending the final
determination of the action, injunction can bind only the parties in the action, or their privies or
successors-in-interest. No person who has not been impleaded and duly served with the summons
should be adversely affected by the outcome of the action. The principle that a person cannot be
prejudiced by a ruling rendered in an action or proceeding in which it has not been made a party
conforms to the constitutional guarantee of due process of law. (PSALM vs. Court of Appeals (21st
Division), 817 SCRA 551, February 15, 2017)

8. A preliminary injunction is in the nature of an ancillary remedy to preserve the status quo during the
pendency of the main case. As a necessary consequence, matters resolved in injunction proceedings do
not, as a general rule, conclusively determine the merits of the main case or decide controverted facts
therein. Generally, findings made in injunction proceedings are subject to the outcome of the main case
which is usually tried subsequent to the injunction proceedings. (Philippine Ports Authority vs.
Integrated Arrastre and Stevedoring Services, Inc., G.R. No. 214864, March 22, 2017)

9. An injunction will not issue to protect a right not in esse or a right that is merely contingent and may
never arise since, to be protected by injunction, the alleged right must be clearly founded on or granted
by law or is enforceable as a matter of law. 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, it does not have a clear legal right and,
therefore, the issuance of injunctive relief is improper. (GMA Network, Inc. vs. National
Telecommunications Commission, Central Catv, Inc., Philippine Home Cable Holdings, Inc., and Pilipino
Cable Corporation, G.R. No. 181789, February 03, 2016)

10. The Regional Trial Court can issue injunctive relief against government infrastructure projects, even
those undertaken by local governments, considering that the prohibition in Section 3 of Republic Act No.
8957 only mentions national government projects. These courts can issue injunctive relief when there
are compelling constitutional violations — only when the right is clear, there is a need to prevent grave
and irreparable injuries, and the public interest at stake in restraining or enjoining the project while the
action is pending far outweighs the inconvenience or costs to the party to whom the project is awarded.
(Citystate Savings Bank, Inc., vs. Maximiano P. Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 200018, April 6, 2015)