This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2010-08-09 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| For sure, the Court is aware that the matter of the propriety of the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. It bears to stress, however, that the injunctive writ is conditioned on the existence of a clear and positive right of the applicant which should be protected, the writ being the strong arm of equity, an extraordinary peremptory remedy which can be availed of only upon the existence of well-defined circumstances. Be that as it may, the writ must be used with extreme caution, affecting as it does the respective rights of the parties.[35] In fine, the writ should be granted only when the court is fully satisfied that the law permits it and the emergency demands it,[36] for the very foundation of the jurisdiction to issue writ of injunction rests in the existence of a cause of action, probability of irreparable injury, inadequacy of pecuniary compensation, and the prevention of the multiplicity of suits. Where facts are not shown to bring the case within these conditions, the relief of injunction should be refused.[37] | |||||
|
2009-07-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Petitioners failed to present one iota of evidence in support of their allegations. They failed to present evidence that indeed their sales dropped by an alleged 25% and that such losses resulted from the alleged infringement by private respondents. Without presenting evidence to prove their allegations, petitioners' arguments cannot be given any merit. Thus, we ruled in Olalia v. Hizon:[36] | |||||
|
2007-10-15 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Recalling this Court's pronouncements in Olalia v. Hizon[58] that:x x x [T]here is no power the exercise of which is more delicate, which requires greater caution, deliberation and sound discretion, or more dangerous in a doubtful case, than the issuance of an injunction. It is the strong arm of equity that should never be extended unless to cases of great injury, where courts of law cannot afford an adequate or commensurate remedy in damages. | |||||
|
2007-02-13 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| It is basic that the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, conditioned on the existence of a clear and positive right of the applicant which should be protected. It is an extraordinary, peremptory remedy available only on the grounds expressly provided by law, specifically Section 3, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court.[34] Moreover, extreme caution must be observed in the exercise of such discretion.[35] It should be granted only when the court is fully satisfied that the law permits it and the emergency demands it.[36] The very foundation of the jurisdiction to issue a writ of injunction rests in the existence of a cause of action and in the probability of irreparable injury, inadequacy of pecuniary compensation, and the prevention of multiplicity of suits. Where facts are not shown to bring the case within these conditions, the relief of injunction should be refused.[37] | |||||
|
2005-08-14 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| At times referred to as the "Strong Arm of Equity,"[39] we have consistently ruled that there is no power the exercise of which is more delicate and which calls for greater circumspection than the issuance of an injunction.[40] It should only be extended in cases of great injury where courts of law cannot afford an adequate or commensurate remedy in damages;[41] "in cases of extreme urgency; where the right is very clear; where considerations of relative inconvenience bear strongly in complainant's favor; where there is a willful and unlawful invasion of plaintiff's right against his protest and remonstrance, the injury being a continuing one, and where the effect of the mandatory injunction is rather to reestablish and maintain a preexisting continuing relation between the parties, recently and arbitrarily interrupted by the defendant, than to establish a new relation."[42] | |||||
|
2005-07-14 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| At times referred to as the "Strong Arm of Equity,"[39] we have consistently ruled that there is no power the exercise of which is more delicate and which calls for greater circumspection than the issuance of an injunction.[40] It should only be extended in cases of great injury where courts of law cannot afford an adequate or commensurate remedy in damages;[41] "in cases of extreme urgency; where the right is very clear; where considerations of relative inconvenience bear strongly in complainant's favor; where there is a willful and unlawful invasion of plaintiff's right against his protest and remonstrance, the injury being a continuing one, and where the effect of the mandatory injunction is rather to reestablish and maintain a preexisting continuing relation between the parties, recently and arbitrarily interrupted by the defendant, than to establish a new relation."[42] | |||||