This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-03-10 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The well-entrenched rule is that the grant or denial of the writ of preliminary injunction rests upon the sound discretion of the court. The trial court is given a wide latitude in this regard. Thus, in the absence of a manifest abuse, such discretion must not be interfered with. [38] "Grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of writs of preliminary injunction implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment that is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice or personal aversion amounting to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act at all in contemplation of law."[39] | |||||
|
2013-09-23 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| A Petition for Certiorari lies only to correct acts rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. "Its principal office is only to keep the inferior court within the parameters of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction."[80] "Grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of writs of preliminary injunction implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment that is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice or personal aversion amounting to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act at all in contemplation of law."[81] | |||||
|
2013-09-04 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a party or a court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts. It may also require the performance of a particular act or acts, in which case it shall be known as a preliminary mandatory injunction.[38] To justify the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, it must be shown that: (1) the complainant has a clear legal right; (2) such right has been violated and the invasion by the other party is material and substantial; and (3) there is an urgent and permanent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.[39] An injunction will not issue to protect a right not in esse, or a right which is merely contingent and may never arise since, to be protected by injunction, the alleged right must be clearly founded on or granted by law or is enforceable as a matter of law.[40] As this Court opined in Dela Rosa v. Heirs of Juan Valdez:[41] | |||||
|
2012-12-03 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| A preliminary injunction may be issued at any time before judgment or final order.[69] It may be a prohibitory injunction, which requires a party to refrain from doing a particular act, or a mandatory injunction, which commands a party to perform a positive act to correct a wrong in the past.[70] A writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, however, is more cautiously regarded because it commands the performance of an act.[71] Accordingly, it must be issued only upon a clear showing that the following requisites are established: (1) the applicant has a clear and unmistakable right that must be protected; (2) there is a material and substantial invasion of such right; and (3) there is an urgent need for the writ to prevent irreparable injury to the applicant.[72] | |||||
|
2012-11-26 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| It is settled that the conclusions and findings of fact of a trial judge are entitled to great weight and should not be disturbed on appeal, unless strong and compelling evidence to the contrary exists.[17] In comparison, appellate magistrates merely read and rely on the cold and inanimate pages of the transcript of stenographic notes and the original records brought before them. This places the trial judge in a better position to examine the real evidence and calibrate the testimonies of the witnesses at the stand.[18] | |||||