Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. ALFREDO C. FLORENDO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 173428 2010-11-22	FROILAN DEJURAS v. RENE C. VILLA PERALTA, J.
In Valley Trading Co., Inc. v. Court of First Instance of Isabela,[44] it was held that the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is addressed to the sound discretion of the issuing authority, conditioned on the existence of a clear and positive right of the applicant which should be protected. It is an extraordinary peremptory remedy that may be availed of only upon the grounds expressly provided by law.[45] In Government Service Insurance System v. Florendo[46] and Searth Commodities Corp. v. Court of Appeals,[47] it was also held that the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction as an ancillary or preventive remedy to secure the rights of a party in a pending case is entirely within the discretion of the tribunal taking cognizance of the case, limited only by the requirement that the use of such discretion be based on ground and in the manner provided by law.[48] Bataclan v. Court of Appeals[49] also points out that although sufficient discretion is allowed in the grant of the relief, extreme caution must be taken in determining the necessity for the grant of the relief prayed for, because it would necessarily affect the protective rights of the parties in a case.[50]
	GR No. 160270 2010-04-23	SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY v. MERLINO E. RODRIGUEZ CARPIO, J.
Until the propriety of granting an injunction, temporary or perpetual, is determined, the court (i.e., the RTC in this case) may issue a temporary restraining order. [26]A TRO is an interlocutory order or writ issued by the court as a restraint on the defendant until the propriety of granting an injunction can be determined, thus going no further in its operation than to preserve the status quo until that determination.[27] A TRO is not intended to operate as an injunction pendente lite, and should not in effect determine the issues involved before the parties can have their day in court.[28]
	GR No. 164324 2009-08-14	TANDUAY DISTILLERS v. GINEBRA SAN MIGUEL CARPIO, J.
In Levi Strauss & Co. v. Clinton Apparelle, Inc.,[66] this Court upheld the appellate court's ruling that the damages Levi Strauss & Co. had suffered or continues to suffer may be compensated in terms of monetary consideration. This Court, quoting Government Service Insurance System v. Florendo,[67] held: x x x a writ of injunction should never issue when an action for damages would adequately compensate the injuries caused. The very foundation of the jurisdiction to issue the writ of injunction rests in the probability of irreparable injury, inadequacy of pecuniary compensation and the prevention of the multiplicity of suits, and where facts are not shown to bring the case within these conditions, the relief of injunction should be refused.
	GR No. 154623 2009-03-13	JIMMY T. GO v. CLERK OF COURT LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Pursuant to the above provision, a clear and positive right especially calling for judicial protection must be shown. Injunction is not a remedy to protect or enforce contingent, abstract, or future rights; it will not issue to protect a right not in esse and which may never arise, or to restrain an act which does not give rise to a cause of action. There must exist an actual right.[20] There must be a patent showing by the complaint that there exists a right to be protected and that the acts against which the writ is to be directed are violative of said right.[21]
	GR NO. 138900 2005-09-20	LEVI STRAUSS v. CLINTON APPARELLE
Under the cited provision, a clear and positive right especially calling for judicial protection must be shown. Injunction is not a remedy to protect or enforce contingent, abstract, or future rights; it will not issue to protect a right not in esse and which may never arise, or to restrain an act which does not give rise to a cause of action. There must exist an actual right.[37] There must be a patent showing by the complaint that there exists a right to be protected and that the acts against which the writ is to be directed are violative of said right.[38]
	GR NO. 138900 2005-09-20	LEVI STRAUSS v. CLINTON APPARELLE
... a writ of injunction should never have been issued when an action for damages would adequately compensate the injuries caused. The very foundation of the jurisdiction to issue the writ of injunction rests in the probability of irreparable injury, inadequacy of pecuniary estimation and the prevention of the multiplicity of suits, and where facts are not shown to bring the case within these conditions, the relief of injunction should be refused.[49]