Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 164324 2009-08-14	TANDUAY DISTILLERS v. GINEBRA SAN MIGUEL CARPIO, J.
We believe that the issued writ of preliminary injunction, if allowed, disposes of the case on the merits as it effectively enjoins the use of the word "Ginebra" without the benefit of a full-blown trial. In Rivas v. Securities and Exchange Commission,[60] we ruled that courts should avoid issuing a writ of preliminary injunction which would in effect dispose of the main case without trial. The issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction had the effect of granting the main prayer of the complaint such that there is practically nothing left for the trial court to try except the plaintiff's claim for damages.
	GR NO. 140284 2005-01-21	BEETHOVEN L. RUALO v. ELISEO P. PITARGUE CARPIO, J.
Courts should avoid issuing a writ of preliminary injunction which would in effect dispose of the main case without trial.[36] In issuing the writ of preliminary injunction, the trial court did not maintain the status quo but restored the situation before the status quo, that is, the situation before the issuance of the RTAOs. In effect, the trial court accepted respondents' premise about an unlawful reorganization and prejudged the constitutionality of the questioned issuances (EO 430, RMO 57-97 and RTAO 28-97 and 1-98 to 35-98).