Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EDUARDO F. HERNANDEZ v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 161051 2009-07-23	COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS VELASCO JR., J.
We again ruled in Hernandez v. National Power Corporation:[39]
	GR No. 174042 2008-07-09	CITY OF NAGA v. ELVI JOHN S. ASUNCION QUISUMBING, J.
In any case, we have ploughed through the records of this case and we are convinced of the pressing need for a writ of preliminary injunction. Be it noted that for a writ of preliminary injunction to be issued, the Rules of Court do not require that the act complained of be in clear violation of the rights of the applicant. Indeed, what the Rules require is that the act complained of be probably in violation of the rights of the applicant. Under the Rules, probability is enough basis for injunction to issue as a provisional remedy. This situation is different from injunction as a main action where one needs to establish absolute certainty as basis for a final and permanent injunction.[49]
	GR Nos. 135688-89 2007-10-18	ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO v. UEM-MARA PHILIPPINES CORPORATION CORONA, J.
(Emphasis supplied) PD 1818 proscribes the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction in any case involving an infrastructure project of the government.[24] The aim of the prohibition, as expressed in its second whereas clause, is to prevent delay in the implementation or execution of government infrastructure projects (particularly through the use of provisional remedies) to the detriment of the greater good since it disrupts the pursuit of essential government projects and frustrates the economic development effort of the nation.[25]