Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RAVA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 157163 2014-06-25	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. JUDGE AGAPITO L. ANOSAS BERSAMIN, J.
It is also basic that the power to issue a writ of injunction is to be exercised only where the reason and necessity therefor are clearly established, and only in cases reasonably free from doubt.[35] For, truly, a preliminary injunction should not determine the merits of a case,[36] or decide controverted facts.[37] As a preventive remedy, injunction only seeks to prevent threatened wrong,[38] further injury,[39] and irreparable harm[40] or injustice[41] until the rights of the parties can be settled. As an ancillary and preventive remedy, it may be resorted to by a party to protect or preserve his rights during the pendency of the principal action, and for no other purpose.[42] Such relief will accordingly protect the ability of the court to render a meaningful decision;[43] it will further serve to guard against a change of circumstances that will hamper or prevent the granting of proper relief after a trial on the merits.[44] Verily, its essential function is to preserve the status quo between the parties until the merits of the case can be heard.[45]
	GR No. 177486 2009-12-21	PURISIMO BUYCO v. NELSON BARAQUIA CARPIO MORALES, J.
It is well-settled that 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. It is usually granted when it is made to appear that there is a substantial controversy between the parties and one of them is committing an act or threatening the immediate commission of an act that will cause irreparable injury or destroy the status quo of the controversy before a full hearing can be had on the merits of the case.[12]
	GR NO. 164529 2007-06-19	FELIX DE GUZMAN OCAMPO v. ALICIA SISON VDA. DE FERNANDEZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is a well-settled rule that 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. It is usually granted when it is made to appear that there is a substantial controversy between the parties and one of them is committing an act or threatening the immediate commission of an act that will cause irreparable injury or destroy the status quo of the controversy before a full hearing can be had on the merits of the case.[26]
	GR NO. 165500 2006-08-30	PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS v. ELENITA B. TRAZO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioners' allegations are in the nature of defenses, and, thus, cannot be considered in determining the sufficiency of the cause of action. For the complaint to be dismissed for failure to state the cause of action, the insufficiency of the cause of action must appear on the face of the complaint.[46] If the allegations in a complaint can furnish a sufficient basis by which the complaint can be maintained, the same should not be dismissed regardless of the defenses that may be assessed by the defendants.[47]
	GR NO. 151132 2006-06-22	FIRST BANCORP v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Petitioner maintains that the trial court acted in accord with law when it dismissed the complaint. While it admits that when it filed its motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint of respondent states no cause of action, it theoretically admitted the truth of the factual and material allegations in the complaint and not mere inferences or conclusions from facts not stated; nor conclusions of law; nor matters of evidence; nor surplusage and irrelevant matter.[30] Petitioner agrees that the court may not inquire into the truth of the allegations and find them to be false before a hearing is had on the merits of the case; and it is improper to inject in the allegations of the complaint facts not alleged or proved, and use these as basis for said motion.[31] The test of the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint is whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer of plaintiff. A complaint may also be dismissed for failure of plaintiff to comply with a condition precedent. There can be no cause of action for filing a complaint in court unless the condition precedent has been complied with. Performance or fulfillment of all conditions precedent whether proscribed by statement or by agreement of the parties or implied by law upon which a right of action depends must be sufficiently alleged.[32]
	GR No. 140058 2002-08-01	MABAYO FARMS v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
by a party to protect or preserve his rights and for no other purpose during the pendency of the principal action.[11] Its object is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard.[12] It is not a cause of action in itself but merely a provisional remedy, an adjunct to a main suit.[13] Thus, a person who is not a party in the main suit, like private respondent in the instant case, cannot be bound by an ancillary writ, such as the writ of preliminary injunction issued against the defendants in Civil Case No. 6695. He cannot be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger.[14] Second, petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred when it observed that petitioner should have impleaded private respondent as defendant in Civil Case No. 6695 pursuant to Section 11, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.[15]