This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-06-25 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| It is true that the trial courts are given generous latitude to act on applications for the injunctive writ for the reason that conflicting claims in an application for the writ more often than not involve a factual determination that is not the function of the appellate courts;[31] and that the exercise of sound discretion by the issuing courts in injunctive matters ought not to be interfered with except when there is manifest abuse.[32] Nonetheless, the exercise of such discretion must be sound, that is, the issuance of the writ, though discretionary, should be upon the grounds and in the manner provided by law.[33] Judges should always bear in mind that the writ of preliminary injunction is issued upon the satisfaction of two requisite conditions, namely: (1) the right to be protected exists prima facie; and (2) the acts sought to be enjoined are violative of that right. | |||||
|
2007-06-08 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| More significantly, a preliminary injunction is merely a provisional remedy, an adjunct to the main case subject to the latter's outcome, the sole objective of which is to preserve the status quo until the trial court hears fully the merits of the case.[47] The status quo should be that existing at the time of the filing of the case.[48] The status quo usually preserved by a preliminary injunction is the last actual, peaceable and uncontested status which preceded the actual controversy.[49] The status quo ante litem is, ineluctably, the state of affairs which is existing at the time of the filing of the case. Indubitably, the trial court must not make use of its injunctive power to alter such status.[50] | |||||