This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-04-22 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the issuance of a preliminary injunction is not intended to correct a wrong done in the past, or to redress an injury already sustained, or to punish wrongful acts already committed, but to preserve and protect the rights of the litigant during the pendency of the case.[17] | |||||
|
2007-10-15 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Rule 58, Section 4(b) provides that a bond is executed in favor of the party enjoined to answer for all damages which it may sustain by reason of the injunction. The purpose of the injunction bond is to protect the defendant against loss or damage by reason of the injunction in case the court finally decides that the plaintiff was not entitled to it, and the bond is usually conditioned accordingly.[57] | |||||
|
2007-04-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| A preliminary injunction or TRO may be granted only when, among others, the applicant, unless exempted by the court, files with the court where the action or proceeding is pending, a bond executed to the party or person enjoined, in an amount to be fixed by the court, to the effect that the applicant will pay such party or person all damages which he may sustain by reason of the injunction or TRO if the court should finally decide that the applicant was not entitled thereto. Upon approval of the requisite bond, a writ of preliminary injunction shall be issued.[29] It has been ruled that the posting of a bond is a condition sine qua non in order that the writ of preliminary injunction may issue.[30] | |||||
|
2007-04-24 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The damages sustained as a result of a wrongfully obtained injunction may be recovered upon the injunction bond which is required to be deposited with court.[27] Rule 57, Section 20, of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, which is similarly applicable to preliminary injunction,[28] has outlined the procedure for the filing of a claim for damages against an injunction bond. The aforesaid provision of law pertinently provides:SEC. 20. Claim for damages on account of improper, irregular or excessive attachment. - An application for damages on account of improper, irregular or excessive attachment must be filed before the trial or before appeal is perfected or before the judgment becomes executory, with due notice to the attaching party and his surety or sureties, setting forth the facts showing his right to damages and the amount thereof. Such damages may be awarded only after proper hearing and shall be included in the judgment on the main case. | |||||
|
2006-06-22 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Injunction is a judicial writ, process or proceeding whereby a party is ordered to do or refrain from doing a certain act. It may be the main action or merely a provisional remedy for and as an incident in the main action.[35] The Court has distinguished the main action for injunction from the provisional or ancillary remedy of preliminary injunction, thus: The main action for injunction is distinct from the provisional or ancillary remedy of preliminary injunction which cannot exist except only as part or an incident of an independent action or proceeding. As a matter of course, in an action for injunction, the auxiliary remedy of preliminary injunction, whether prohibitory or mandatory, may issue. Under the law, the main action for injunction seeks a judgment embodying a final injunction which is distinct from, and should not be confused with, the provisional remedy of preliminary injunction, the sole object of which is to preserve the status quo until the merits can be heard. A preliminary injunction is granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order. It persists until it is dissolved or until the termination of the action without the court issuing a final injunction.[36] By praying for injunctive relief, petitioner did not intend to correct a wrong of the past, for redress of injury already sustained, but to prevent his ouster from membership in the Board. By his action for injunction, petitioner sought to preserve the status quo of things, to prevent actual or threatened acts which would violate the rules of equity and good conscience as would consequently afford him a cause of action resulting from the failure of the law to provide for an adequate or complete relief.[37] | |||||