PROVISIONAL REMEDIES (Rule 58) 21

RULE 58
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Section 1. Preliminary injunction defined; classes. -

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. It may also require the performance of a
particular act or acts, in which case it shall be
known as preliminary mandatory injunction.

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 or to require the
performance of a particular act or acts.
- is sometimes called strong arm of equity.

Q: What are the changes there?

A: The word " final order" was not found in the 1964 Rules. And then, the new
Rule says, you can issue a writ of preliminary injunction not only against a party
but even to a court or agency.

TYPES OF INJUNCTION:

1. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
2. FINAL INJUNCTION

2 TYPES OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION:

1. PREVENTIVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

2. MANDATORY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Q: What is a preventive preliminary injunction?

A: A preventive preliminary injunction is one which requires a person to refrain
from doing a particular act or acts.

[The Ten Commandments is a preventive injunction. Huh! (“,)]

Q: What is a mandatory preliminary injunction?

A: A mandatory preliminary injunction is one which requires a person to perform a
particular act or acts.

Q: What is a FINAL INJUNCTION?

A: A final injunction is one which is included in the judgment as the relief or
part of the relief granted as the result of the case. Final injunction is the one
mentioned section 9 of this Rule --- tapos na ang kaso.

Property of
LAKAS ATENISTA
 PROVISIONAL REMEDIES (Rule 58) 22

Section 9: When final injunction granted. - If after the trial

of the action it appears that the applicant is entitled to have
the act or acts complained of permanently enjoined, 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 injunction.

That is not a provisional remedy. That is the main relief. So, the preliminary
injunction becomes now total and permanent.

So, if I want to permanently stop you from doing an act I will have to file a case
for injunction, which is a main action for injunction.

And if I want to pray, while the case is going on that you should be also
prevented from doing the same act---I have to apply for a writ of preliminary
injunction. Kaya sa civil, it is worded this way: Civil case for injunction with writ of
preliminary injunction. The injunction is the final injunction and the writ is the
provisional one. So the former is the main relief while the latter is the temporary
relief.

Purpose of preliminary injunction: To maintain the status quo between

the parties in relation to the subject matter. So, to maintain the status quo.

STATUS QUO is the last peaceable and uncontested status of the parties which
preceded the pending case from the controversy.

Because status quo may be preceded like, the squatters entering your land, so
nasa loob na sila. So you ask for preliminary injunction--- so status quo. Sabi ng
mga squatters, “status quo--- we will remain in the land!”

Of course, that is not the purpose. The purpose is to bring you out because the
status quo is the last peaceable , uncontested status of the parties which
precededthe pending action or prior to the case.

Even in the labor case, magulo iyan eh, yong last peaceable and uncontested
status. An example of injunction in Labor case, iyong assumption of jurisdiction
by the Secretary of Labor. In which the Secretary of Labor assumes jurisdiction
in cases of national interest.
Ano iyon ? When there is a threatened strike --- injunction! And if there is
already a strike, strike is lifted and the employee must have to go back to work
and the management will accept those employees under the terms and
conditions before the strike.

Section 2. Who may grant preliminary injunction. -

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

Q: Who may grant a preliminary injunction?

A: 1. The court where the case is pending.
2. CA.

Property of
LAKAS ATENISTA
 PROVISIONAL REMEDIES (Rule 58) 23

3. SC.

EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE AUTHORITY (EPZA) vs. CHR

April 14, 1992

FACTS: When ordered to stop, the occupants of the export

processing zone authority in the EPZA land where the occupants
filed a case in the CHR (Commission on Human Rights), the
CHR issued a writ of injunction or restraining order against the
supposed violators of human rights to compel them to cease and
desist from continuing the acts complained of, and the authority of
the CHR to issue an injunction was challenged. Does it have an
authority ?
And the CHR said, yes---because under the Constitution the
principal function of the CHR is not merely limited in having
investigation. It is mandated among others to provide
appropriate legal measures for the protection of the human rights
of all persons within the Philippines as well Filipino abroad. And to
provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to the
under privileged whose human rights have been violated.

ISSUE: Does the CHR have the power to issue a writ of

injunction?

HELD: The CHR is wrong because as earlier ruled in the case of

CARIO VS. CHR, the CHR is not a court of justice and it is not
even a quasi-judicial body. The Constitutional provisions cited
may not be construed to compel jurisdiction of the CHR to issue
restraining order or injunction because if that was the intention
the Constitution would have especially said so.
Jurisdiction is conferred only by the Constitution and by the law
and is never derived by implication.

Q: What is the meaning of the term preventive measures or legal

measures which the CHR is allowed to provide under the
Constitution?

A: Evidently, that phrase refers to extra judicial and judicial

remedies including a preliminary writ of injunction which the CHR
has to seek from the proper courts on behalf of the victims of
human right violations. So, the CHR not being a court of justice
has no jurisdiction to issue the writ because under Section 2 of
Rule 58, "A writ of preliminary injunction may only be issued
by a judge or justices of CA or SC."

Section 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary

injunction.-A preliminary injunction may be granted
when it is established:

a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief

demanded, and the whole 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

Property of
LAKAS ATENISTA
 PROVISIONAL REMEDIES (Rule 58) 24

for a limited period or perpetually;

b) That the commission, continuance, or non-

performance of the act or acts complained of
during the litigation would probably work in
justice to the applicant; or

c) That 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. (3a)

This Section has some minor changes.

Q: Ano ang changes ?

A: They added the word: non-performance. That is why they emphasized the
essence of mandatory, eh! So, f there is preliminary preventive, there is also,
preliminary mandatory.

Q: What is the area of enforceability of a writ of injunction?

A: Go back to the Interim Rules, Section 3-A. If the writ of preliminary injunction
is issued by the SC and CA, there is no problem. That is enforceable throughout
the country.

Q: What about an injunction issued by the RTC?

A: It cannot be enforced outside the region where such RTC is located.
Well, there is ONE EXCEPTION. That is in the case of EMBASSY FARMS,
INC vs. CA, 188 SCRA 492 reiterating the earlier case of DAGUPAN
ELECTRIC CORP. vs. PAO, 95 SCRA 693.

And here is the best example:

A corporation has extensive agricultural operation for example in Mindanao. But

the head office is in Makati. The management of the company in Makati arrives at
a decision regarding certain operations of their business in Mindanao. and the
aggrieved party files a case in the RTC of Makati and sought the issuance of a
writ of preliminary injunction against the corporation.

And the Makati court issued a writ of injunction where the act sought to be
enjoined is not in Makati but in Mindanao.

Q: Is the issuance of the writ of injunction of the Makati court proper?

A: And the court said, YES! While it is true that the act to be restrained is going
to be done in Mindanao but all the instruction and decision and decision are
coming from Makati. So, the Makati court can enjoin. That is the exception to the
Rule that the RTC injunction is only enforceable within the region.

Note:
GENERAL RULE: No court can issue a writ of preliminary injunction to

Property of
LAKAS ATENISTA
 PROVISIONAL REMEDIES (Rule 58) 25

interfere with the judgments, processes of a co-equal court. So, the RTC
cannot enjoin another RTC. Also, the RTC cannot enjoin acts/proceedings in
connection with a case pending before a co-equal quasi-judicial body. Like for
example: the RTC cannot enjoin the Labor arbiter. The RTC cannot enjoin the
SEC. Because these are co-equal bodies.

So, for example in case of judgment against you in Manila and the Sheriff is now
claiming your property and you want to question the act of the Sheriff because
your property was levied. You file your case in Davao to stop the execution. If
there is any irregularity, you better go back and seek relief from the court
which issued the execution.

EXCEPTION:

That situation that no court can interfere in the process of a co-equal court
should not be conferred with the situation which is contemplated in the case of
Manila Herald vs.IAC 133 SCRA 141.

Mind you, all the cases asked in the Bar were taken from the exception and not
from the general rule.
Manila Herald vs.IAC
133 SCRA 141.
FACTS: A filed a case against B in Davao. B lost the case. So, a writ of
execution was issued by the court to the sheriff. The sheriff levied certain
properties of B. Now, here comes C. According to C, the property levied were
not owned by B but by him (C) --- 3rd person, di ba ?
And under the Rule, nothing will prevent him from filing a separate action to
raise the question of ownership. So C filed a case before another court to annul
the levy made by the sheriff on his property and to stop him from continuing with
the auction sale.
Now, according to A, the court has no jurisdiction to issue the injunction because
it will be an interference with the process of the court to render judgment.

Q: Can the court validly issue the injunction?

A: Of course many remembered the general rule thatthe court cannot for it will be
an interference.
That is wrong. Remember, in those cases with interference there is no 3rd
person involved. Ito meron. It is not B the defendant questioning the levy, it was
C, who is not a party, asking to stop the levy.
So, the SC said: The 3rd party can file a separate case.

Q: Is that not an interference?

A: No! It is not an interference because in the judgment ordering the issuance of
the writ of execution issued by the court in favor of A, the Sheriff is commanded
to levy on the properties of B and not ordered to levy on the properties of C.
So, if the sheriff will levy on the property of C [or X or W] --- that is not part of
the writ. So, C can question that and he is not interfering.

One thing important about injunction is that there are two requisites:

TWO REQUISITES IN INJUNCTION:

1. The plaintiff must clearly show the existence of a right sought to be

protected.
2. And the injunction is directed against the violation of the said right.

Property of
LAKAS ATENISTA
 PROVISIONAL REMEDIES (Rule 58) 26

So there must be a right sought to be protected. If there is no right which ought to

be protected, there could be no injunction.

An example is the case of

SARENO V. DICTADO
160 SCRA 759

FACTS: Sareno was elected as mayor, he was proclaimed as the

winner. Five days later, the losing candidate filed an election
protest before the RTC.

Judge Dictado issued a writ of preliminary injunction to stop

Sareno from assuming office pending resolution of the case
(election protest).

HELD: Judge Dictado committed grave abuse of discretion and

acted in excess of jurisdiction. The reason is that the pendency of
the election protest is not a sufficient basis to enjoin Sareno from
assuming office as required by law.
The efficiency of public administration should not be impaired until
and unless the election protest is decided against Sareno. During
the pendency of the case, he has the lawful right to assume and
perform the duties of a mayor. The claim of the losing candidate
to the contested office is a contingent right which could only
ripen into an actual right when judgment is rendered to this effect.
His alleged right has not been clearly established against
Sareno whose right is actually existing. An injunction is not
proper to protect contingent or future rights nor is it a remedy to
enforce an abstract right.

Distinguish the case of Sareno from:

YU v. COURT OF APPEALS
217 SCRA 328

FACTS: Yu is the exclusive distributor of a certain product here in

the Philippines. He discovered that another businessman is
selling the same product within the country. He filed a case
against the other businessman and sought an injunction against
the latter from selling said product.

HELD: Injunction is an appropriate remedy to prevent the wrongful

interference with contracts by strangers where other remedies are
not sufficient and the resulting injury is irreparable. The right to an
exclusive distributorship and to raise profits resulting from such
performance are proprietary rights which may be protected.

Instances where the issuance of injunction was held to be proper:

Property of
LAKAS ATENISTA
 PROVISIONAL REMEDIES (Rule 58) 27

1) In petitions for certiorari or prohibition and mandamus.

2) In an action to annul a judgment or enjoin its enforcement.

Instances where injunction is inappropriate:

1) Injunction is inappropriate in enjoining an act which is already

consummated.

2) A criminal prosecution cannot be enjoined or restrained.

You cannot prevent the fiscal from conducting criminal investigation and
the court cannot prevent him from conducting an investigation. The
remedy is to go to his superior or if you believe that there is no case, the
remedy is to go to trial. But the general rule: The criminal prosecution
cannot be enjoined. But there are exceptions :

BROCKA vs ENRILE
December 10, 1990 (192 SCRA 183)

HELD: The primary issue here is the legality of enjoining the criminal
prosecution of a case, since the two other issues raised by Brocka, et al.
are matters of defense against the sedition charge.
We rule in favor of Brocka, et al. and enjoin their criminal
prosecution for the second offense of inciting to sedition.
Indeed, the general rule is that criminal prosecution may not be
restrained or stayed by injunction, preliminary or final.
There are however exceptions, among which are:
a. To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused
"
b. When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid
oppression or multiplicity of actions "
c. When there is a pre-judicial question which is sub judice
d. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority
e. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation
f. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent "
g. Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense
h. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution
i. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for
vengeance, and
j. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a
motion to quash on that ground has been denied.
In the petition before us, Brocka, et al. have cited the
circumstances to show that the criminal proceedings had become a case
of persecution, having been undertaken by state officials in bad faith.

ALLADO vs DIOKNO
May 5, 1994 (232 SCRA 192)

FACTS: Two lawyers, assistants of Salonga were charged of murder for

the alleged kidnapping of a German. Salonga asked to stop the criminal
prosecution.

Property of
LAKAS ATENISTA
 PROVISIONAL REMEDIES (Rule 58) 28

HELD: The facts of this case are fatefully distressing as they showcase
the seeming immensity of government power which when unchecked
becomes tyrannical and oppressive. The case before us, if uncurbed, can
be illustrative of a dismal trend. Needless injury of the sort inflicted by
government agents is not reflective of responsible government. Judges
and law enforcers are not, by reason of their high and prestigious office,
relieved of the common obligation to avoid deliberately inflicting
unnecessary injury.
Perhaps, this case would not have reached this Court if petitioners were
ordinary people submissive to the dictates of government. They would
have been illegally arrested and detained without bail. Then we would not
have the opportunity to rectify the injustice. Fortunately, the victims of
injustice are lawyers who are vigilant of their rights, who fight for their
liberty and freedom not otherwise available to those who cover in fear and
subjection.

3) A mandatory injunction cannot be issued to compel one spouse to

cohabit with the other.
So, you cannot compel the wife. You are hereby enjoined to
cohabit your husband. Hindi yun puwede. Although she is obliged
under the law to live with his husband but no amount of court
order can force the wife to return to her husband kung ayaw niya.
Although there are other sanctions but not injunctions.

Let us go to MANDATORY INJUNCTION. This is rarer than a preventive

preliminary injunction. The guidelines for its issuance is also strict.

PURPOSE: is to re-establish and maintain a pre-existing right rather than to

create anew relationship between them.

If there is already an existing relationship which was arbitrarily interrupted by you,

I can file for mandatory injunction.

Q: When may a court issue a preliminary mandatory injunction?

A: 1. In cases of extreme urgency.
2. Where the right is very clear. PROSPERITY CREDIT RESOURCES, INC. vs
CA, January 15,1999. The right of the complainant must be clear and
unmistakable because, unlike an ordinary preliminary injunction, the writ
of preliminary mandatory injunction requires the performance of a
particular act or and thus tends to do more than maintain the status quo.

3. Where consideration of relative inconvenience bears strongly in

complainant's favor.

4. Where there is a willful and unlawful invasion of plaintiffs’ right against his
protest and remonstrance, the injury being a continuing one.

5. Articles 539 and 1674 of the Civil Code which expressly direct the
issuance of mandatory injunction. Example: A possessor deprived of his
possession by forcible entry may, within so many days, file a complaint in

Property of
LAKAS ATENISTA
 PROVISIONAL REMEDIES (Rule 58) 29

the proper court and ask for a writ of mandatory injunction to restore him
in his possession. And also, in different cases where the defendant
appealed, the lessor can ask the appellate court to issue a mandatory
injunction if the appeal is frivolous or dilatory. Those are the instances
when the law expressly grants the remedy.
6. Where the effect of mandatory injunction is rather to re-establish and
maintain a pre-existing continuing relation between the parties recently
and arbitrarily interrupted by the defendant.

The example asked in the Bar many times, MERALCO VS. CA, where the
electric power of the defendant was disconnected by Meralco, Then he filed a
case questioning the act of Meralco, and he has evidence to show that he has
paying his bills. Something happened somewhere. If he will wait for the time of
judgment to be rendered, that would take years. While the case is going on, he
can file for a mandatory injunction to reconnect.

Another example was the case of LEVI VS. VALENCIA, where Levi was the
owner of a broadcasting company. The government raided his radio station and
got his transmitter and cut down the power of his transmitter. He questioned all
these acts and in the meantime, he filed for mandatory injunction to allow him
to continue broadcasting because he has contracts with advertisers to comply
with .

The SC said, when the petitioner was not able to continue broadcasting due to
seizure of his radio transmitter, this affects his contractual relations with third
persons. The court is justified to issuing a mandatory injunction.

SEC. 4. Verified application and bond for preliminary

injunction or temporary restraining order. - A
preliminary injunction or temporary restraining
order may be granted only when:

a.) The application in the action or proceeding is

verified and shows facts entitling the applicant to
the relief demanded; and

b.) 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
approval of the requisite bond, a writ of
preliminary injunction shall be issued.

c.) When an application for a writ of preliminary

injunction or a temporary restraining order is
included is a complaint or any initiatory pleading,
the case, if filed in an multiple-sala court, shall be
raffled only after notice to and in the presence of
the adverse party of the person to be enjoined. In
Property of
LAKAS ATENISTA
 PROVISIONAL REMEDIES (Rule 58) 30

any event, such notice shall be preceded, or

contemporaneously accompanied, by the service of
summons, together with a copy of the complainant
or initiatory pleading and the applicants 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, the requirement of prior
contemporaneous service of summons shall not
apply.

d.) The application of a temporary restraining order

shall thereafter be acted upon only after all
parties are heard in a summary hearing which
shall be conducted within twenty four (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.

Sec. 5. Preliminary injunction not granted without

notice; exception. - No preliminary injunction shall be
granted without hearing and prior notice to the party
or person sought to be enjoined. If it shall appear
from the facts shown by affidavits or by the verified
application that great or irreparable injury would
result to the applicantbefore the matter can be heard
on notice, the court to which the application for
preliminary injunction was made, may issue ex parte
a temporary restraining order to be effective only for
a period of Twenty (20) days from service on the party
or person sought to be enjoined, except as herein
provided. Within the twenty day period, the court
must order said party or person to show cause, at a
specified time and place, why the injunction should
not be granted, determine within the same period
whether or not the preliminary injunction shall be
granted, and accordingly issue the corresponding
order.

However, and subject to provisions of the preceding

sections, 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 court may issue
ex parte a temporary restraining order effective only
for seventy two (72) hours from issuance but he shall
immediately comply with the provisions of the next
preceding sections as to service of summons and the

Property of
LAKAS ATENISTA
 PROVISIONAL REMEDIES (Rule 58) 31

documents to be served therewith. Thereafter,

within the aforesaid seventy two (72) hours, the
judge before whom the case is pending shall conduct
a summary hearing to determine whether the
temporary restraining order shall be extended until
the application for preliminary injunction can be
heard. In no case shall the total period of effectivity
of the temporary restraining order exceed twenty (20)
days, including the original seventy two (72) hours
provided herein.

In the event that the application for preliminary

injunction is denied or not resolved within said
period, the temporary restraining order is deemed
automatically vacated. The effectivity of a temporary
restraining order 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.

However, if issued by the Court of Appeals or a

member thereof the temporary restraining order shall
be effective for sixty (60) day from service on the
party or person sought to be enjoined. A restraining
order issued by the Supreme Court or a member
thereof shall be effective until further orders.

Sections 4 and 5 were taken from existing SC circulars particularly AC 20-95.

The trouble is specially section 4, the committee who drafted the new rules
inserted so many rules here that it becomes so hard to understand. Actually,
it has become vague.

Let us proceed with the basics. Some of which we have already learned.

Q: What are the requirements for the issuance of the writ of preliminary
injunction?
A: Letters a and b of Section 4.
1. A verified application stating the facts showing the existence of a right
sought to be protected. Example: A local businessman entered into a
contract with a foreign supplier of items. He became the exclusive
distributor. However, another businessman is selling the same product.
Does he have right to enjoin that another businessman? Yes. Because he
has a right sought to be protected.
2. Bond.

Q: Can a writ of Preliminary Injunction be issued ex parte -

without hearing ?

A: NO. Section 5 is very clear. No preliminary injunction to be granted without

hearing and further notice to parties sought to be enjoined.

So, the Filinvest ruling, Cuartero, Davao light ruling are not applicable.

There must be a hearing, presentation of evidence. Of course, in the

Property of
LAKAS ATENISTA
 PROVISIONAL REMEDIES (Rule 58) 32

presentation of evidence since you are only asking for an injunction, the
evidence should only be a sample, because if you will present your entire
evidence you are no longer asking for an injunction but a decision.

That was explained by the SC in the 1993 case of

SYNDICATED MEDIA ACCESS CORP. vs CA

219 SCRA 784

HELD: While the evidence to be submitted in the hearing for the

motion for preliminary injunction need not be conclusive or
complete, the evidence needed may only be a sampling and
intended merely to give the court an idea of justification for
preliminary injunction pending the decision of the case on the
merits, still such evidence must stand on admissible grounds an
not one which is merely hearsay.

The analogy is the same in case of petition for bail in criminal

procedure.

Q: What happens if great or irreparable injury would result to the

applicant before the matter can be heard, meaning, before the
preliminary injunction can be acted upon. Is there a remedy
temporarily?

A: YES. You ask for a temporary restraining order. That is the

provisional remedy of the provisional remedy. And the grounds for
injunction are found in Section 3. The ground for a temporary
restraining order is that great or irreparable injury would result to
the plaintiff before the matter can be heard.

So, the temporary restraining order may be issued ex parte but it

has only a duration of 20 days. As stated by the SC and
emphasized in the 3rd paragraph of section 5, the effectivity of
the TRO is unextendible without the need of judicial declaration to
that effect and no court shall have the authority to extend the
same on the same grounds. There is no such thing as an
extended TRO. This was taken from judicial declarations.

There seems to be AN EXCEPTION. One of them is cited in the case of

FEDERATION OF LAND REFORM FARMERS OF THE PHILS. vs. CA

246 SCRA 175 (1994).

HELD: Ordinarily, the efficacy of the TRO is non-extendible, and

the courts have no discretion to extend the same considering the
mandatory tenor of the rule. However, there is no reason to
prevent the court from extending the 20-day period when the
parties themselves ask for some extension for the maintenance of
the status quo. Because of AC 20-95 which has been
incorporated in sections 4 & 5, the SC created a second type of
TRO, the so called 72-hour TRO. Because when you file a case, it
has not yet been raffled. So under Circular 20-95, the

Property of
LAKAS ATENISTA
 PROVISIONAL REMEDIES (Rule 58) 33

executive judge in a multi-sala court can issue ex parte a

temporary restraining order but only good for 72 hours or
three days. And then within 24 hours, the other party must be
notified. There must be a special raffling within 24 hours. and
then the judge must conduct a summary hearing based on the
arguments only, in order to determine whether the temporary
restraining order should be extended beyond 72 hours.

Two kinds of temporary restraining order:

1. Issued by an executive judge valid only for 72 hours.
2. After summary hearing, the judge will now extend and the extension
should not be more than 20 days. The 72 hours is already included in the
20 days. So in effect, the extension is only for 17 days, and the total life of
the TRO is 20 days.

1. Distinguish a writ a preliminary injunction from a temporary

restraining order.

One requires a hearing, the other may issued ex parte. Generally, preliminary
injunction is indefinite until dissolved. Normally, a preliminary injunction requires
a bond, a temporary restraining can be issued w/out a bond.

But there is second question.

2. Distinguish a TRO issued by an executive judge from a TRO issued

by an ordinary judge.

The former is good for 72 hrs. and the latter for 20 days including the first 72 hrs.
The former is issued before raffling and the latter after raffling. The former is
ex-parte and the latter is after summary hearing. For the 72-hr TRO, the ground
is extreme urgency. And the ground for the 20-day TRO is that grave and
irreparable injury would result before the matter can be heard.

So 20 days if issued by the MTC or RTC.

Q: How about a TRO issued by the CA?

A: You have the last paragraph, it is now effective for 60 days from service to the
parties. The case of Delbros Hotel Corp. is abrogated because under the said
case the lifetime of the temporary restraining order issued by the CA is only 20
days. So from 20 to 60 days.

Q: How about a TRO issued by the SC ?

A: This time it is indefinite. It shall effective until the case is decided. Actually, The
SC can give a deadline. Sometimes after further orders, sometimes they can
limit it.

Q: Is there a necessity of a bond?

A: A bond is required for only a preliminary injunction and as a rule there is no
bond for a TRO. You look at par. a, "and the amount fix by court....." so the
bond can now be imposed for a TRO when actually it is only for injunction as
a rule.

Maybe what is intended by the law, 72 hrs. then you ask for an extension up to
another 7 days, so 10 days. Then after 10 days, extension again. That is

Property of
LAKAS ATENISTA
 PROVISIONAL REMEDIES (Rule 58) 34

allowed because it is up to 20 days. Then you give a bond for the second
extension. The court is now empower to fix a bond for the TRO. But definitely
in injunction there is a bond. But you look at the opening clause of par. b
"unless excepted by the court." that means to say there are instances when the
court may exempt the petitioner form putting up a bond in injunction when under
the rule there is none. That is a radical change.

Take note: Generally. An injunction requires a bond unless exempted by the

court.

Under par. c of section 4, the last part has incorporated a portion of the Davao
Light ruling. A TRO must be served prior or contemporaneously with the
summons. You can not serve the TRO ahead. It must be served prior to the
summons or at least contemporaneously.

Sec. 6. Grounds for objection to, or for motion of

dissolution of, injunction or restraining order. - The
application for injunction or restraining order may
be denied, upon a showing of its insufficiency. 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. It may further be denied, or, if granted,
may be dissolved if it appears hearing that although
the applicant is entitled to the injunction or
restraining order, the issuance or the 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 denial
or dissolution of the injunction and restraining
order. If it appears that the extent of the preliminary
injunction or restraining order granted too great, it
may be modified.

Q: What are the grounds for the dissolution of a writ of preliminary injunction or
objection to its issuance?
A: That is under Sec. 6.
1. When the insufficiency of the application is shown by the application itself.
The petition has no basis.
2. Upon affidavits of the party or person enjoined, which may be opposed by
the applicant also by affidavits.
3. Putting up a counter-bond.

Sec. 7. Service of copies of bonds; effect of disapproval

of same. – The party filing a bond in accordance with
the provisions of this Rule shall forthwith serve a copy
of such bond on the other party, who may except to the
sufficiency of the bond, or of the surety or sureties
thereon. If the applicant’s bond is found to be
Property of
LAKAS ATENISTA
 PROVISIONAL REMEDIES (Rule 58) 35

insufficient in amount, or if the surety or sureties

thereon fail to justify, and a bond sufficient in amount
with sufficient sureties approved after justification is
not filed forthwith, the injunction shall be dissolved. If
the bond of the adverse party is found to be
insufficient in amount, or the surety or sureties
thereon fail to justify a bond sufficient in amount with
sufficient sureties approved after justification is not
filed forthwith, the injunction shall be granted or
restored, as the case may be.

Sec. 8. Judgment to include damages against party

and sureties.- At the trial, the amount of damages to
be awarded to either party , upon the bond of the
adverse party, shall be claimed , ascertained and
awarded under the same procedure prescribed in
Section 20 of Rule 57.

Q: Can you claim for damages against an injunction bond?

A: YES. The same procedure for recovery of damages against the attachment
bond in Section 20, Rule 57.

Before we leave this topic, you must remember that there are SOME SPECIAL
LAWS WHICH PROHIBIT THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION OR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER.

Q: What are these?

A: They are the following:

1. B.P. 227, which prohibits the issuance of injunctions or TROs in labor

cases;
2. P.D. 605, prohibiting courts from issuing injunctions and TRO’s against
projects for the exploitation or development of natural resources;
3. P.D. 385, prohibiting injunction against government financing
institutions, against mandatory foreclosures or against CARL;
4. R.A. 7181 as inserted by R.A. 7061, you cannot issue an injunction
against the Asset Privatization Trust;
5. P.D. 1818, prohibiting injunction against public infrastructure projects
and public utilities; Under this law in relation to SC circulars, no injunction
also against NAPOCOR.

MALAGA vs. PINASTIUS, JR.

213 SCRA 516

Q: What is the extent of the applicability of P.D. 1818?

Actually, what is prohibited is that the court cannot interfere in

injunction in controversies involving facts for the exercise of
discretion in technical cases. Example, we will not award because
the plan is substandard. Only one bidder and he losses. He
complains and wants to question the award of the committee on
technical matters.
Property of
LAKAS ATENISTA
 PROVISIONAL REMEDIES (Rule 58) 36

The SC said the Court cannot rule on that. What do we know of

technical matters like engineering? So the court cannot substitute
its own decision on technical matters like engineering or on
infrastructure projects. That is prohibited. But if I will ask the
court to issue an injunction to stop an infrastructure project
because from the very start including the award has been
tainted with corruption, that is allowed because it refers to legal
matters.

So the SC said, “The prohibition pertains to the issuance of

injunction against administrative acts or technical cases. To allow
the court to judge on technical matters would disturb the smooth
functioning of the administrative machinery. However, on issues
definitely outside of this dimension and involving questions of
law, the court could not be prevented by the decree for
exercising their power to restrain or prohibit administrative acts.
P.D. 1818 was not intended to screen from judicial scrutiny
irregularities committed by administrative agencies.”

Section 9. When final injunction granted. – If after the

trial of the action it appears that the applicant is
entitled to have the act or acts complained of
permanently enjoined, 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
injunction.

Property of
LAKAS ATENISTA