This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-01-07 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| It is a deeply ingrained doctrine in Philippine remedial law that a preliminary injunctive writ under Rule 58[14] issues only upon a showing of the applicant's "clear legal right"[15] being violated or under threat of violation by the defendant.[16] "Clear legal right," within the meaning of Rule 58, contemplates a right "clearly founded in or granted by law."[17] Any hint of doubt or dispute on the asserted legal right precludes the grant of preliminary injunctive relief.[18] For suits attacking the validity of laws or issuances with the force and effect of law, as here, the applicant for preliminary injunctive relief bears the added burden of overcoming the presumption of validity inhering in such laws or issuances.[19] These procedural barriers to the issuance of a preliminary injunctive writ are rooted on the equitable nature of such relief, preserving the status quo while, at the same time, restricting the course of action of the defendants even before adverse judgment is rendered against them. | |||||
|
2009-11-24 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| A preliminary injunction may be granted only where the plaintiff appears to be clearly entitled to the relief sought[26] and has substantial interest in the right sought to be defended.[27] While the existence of the right need not be conclusively established, it must be clear.[28] The standard is even higher in the case of a preliminary mandatory injunction, which should only be granted - | |||||