Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 164299 2008-02-12	MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. POWERGEN CORONA, J.
If only to emphasize our point, we recall our decision in Capitol Medical Center, Inc. v. CA[26] on the purpose of an injunctive writ:The sole object of a preliminary injunction, whether prohibitory or mandatory, is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard. The status quo is the last actual peaceable uncontested status which preceded the controversy. It may only be resorted to by a litigant for the preservation or protection of his rights or interests and for no other purpose during the pendency of the principal action. It should only be granted if the party asking for it is clearly entitled thereto. (emphasis supplied)[27]
	GR NO. 145742 2005-08-14	PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY v. CIPRES STEVEDORING CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
At times referred to as the "Strong Arm of Equity,"[39] we have consistently ruled that there is no power the exercise of which is more delicate and which calls for greater circumspection than the issuance of an injunction.[40] It should only be extended in cases of great injury where courts of law cannot afford an adequate or commensurate remedy in damages;[41] "in cases of extreme urgency; where the right is very clear; where considerations of relative inconvenience bear strongly in complainant's favor; where there is a willful and unlawful invasion of plaintiff's right against his protest and remonstrance, the injury being a continuing one, and where the effect of the mandatory injunction is rather to reestablish and maintain a preexisting continuing relation between the parties, recently and arbitrarily interrupted by the defendant, than to establish a new relation."[42]
	GR NO. 145742 2005-08-14	PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY v. CIPRES STEVEDORING CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Finally, it is settled that the sole object of a preliminary injunction, may it be prohibitory or mandatory, is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard and the final judgment rendered.[53] The status quo is the last actual peaceable uncontested status which preceded the controversy.
	GR No. 145742 2005-07-14	PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY v. CIPRES STEVEDORING CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
At times referred to as the "Strong Arm of Equity,"[39] we have consistently ruled that there is no power the exercise of which is more delicate and which calls for greater circumspection than the issuance of an injunction.[40] It should only be extended in cases of great injury where courts of law cannot afford an adequate or commensurate remedy in damages;[41] "in cases of extreme urgency; where the right is very clear; where considerations of relative inconvenience bear strongly in complainant's favor; where there is a willful and unlawful invasion of plaintiff's right against his protest and remonstrance, the injury being a continuing one, and where the effect of the mandatory injunction is rather to reestablish and maintain a preexisting continuing relation between the parties, recently and arbitrarily interrupted by the defendant, than to establish a new relation."[42]
	GR No. 145742 2005-07-14	PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY v. CIPRES STEVEDORING CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Finally, it is settled that the sole object of a preliminary injunction, may it be prohibitory or mandatory, is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard and the final judgment rendered.[53] The status quo is the last actual peaceable uncontested status which preceded the controversy.