Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ISABEL JAEL MARQUEZ v. PRESIDING JUDGE

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 162230 2014-08-12	ISABELITA C. VINUYA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO G. ROMULO BERSAMIN, J.
In Marquez v. The Presiding Judge (Hon. Ismael B. Sanchez), RTC Br. 58, Lucena City,[27] we expounded as follows: 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. Moreover, extreme caution must be observed in the exercise of such discretion. It should be granted only when the court is fully satisfied that the law permits it and the emergency demands it. 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.[28]
	GR No. 165950 2010-08-08	EQUITABLE PCI BANK v. OJ-MARK TRADING VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Respondent-spouses' alleged "proprietary right" in the mortgaged condominium unit appears to be based merely on respondents' averment that respondent OJ-Mark Trading, Inc. is a family corporation. However, there is neither allegation nor evidence to show prima facie that such purported right, whether as majority stockholder or creditor, was superior to that of petitioner as creditor-mortgagee. The rule requires that in order for a preliminary injunction to issue, the application should clearly allege facts and circumstances showing the existence of the requisites. It must be emphasized that an application for injunctive relief is construed strictly against the pleader.[32]
	GR No. 179230 2010-03-09	EUGENE L. LIM v. BPI AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK CARPIO MORALES, J.
One of the requisites for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is that the applicant must have a right in esse.[22] A right in esse is a clear and unmistakable right to be protected,[23] one clearly founded on or granted by law or is enforceable as a matter of law.[24] The existence of a right to be protected, and the acts against which the writ is to be directed are violative of said right must be established.[25]
	GR No. 184778 2009-10-02	BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS MONETARY BOARD v. NINA G. ANTONIO-VALENZUELA VELASCO JR., J.
The respondent banks have failed to show their entitlement to the writ of preliminary injunction. It must be emphasized that an application for injunctive relief is construed strictly against the pleader.[14] The respondent banks cannot rely on a simple appeal to procedural due process to prove entitlement. The requirements for the issuance of the writ have not been proved. No invasion of the rights of respondent banks has been shown, nor is their right to copies of the ROEs clear and unmistakable. There is also no necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. Indeed the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction tramples upon the powers of the MB and prevents it from fulfilling its functions. There is no right that the writ of preliminary injunction would protect in this particular case. In the absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of the injunctive writ constitutes grave abuse of discretion.[15] In the absence of proof of a legal right and the injury sustained by the plaintiff, an order for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction will be nullified.[16]
	GR No. 179892-93 2009-01-30	ATTY. VICTORIANO V. OROCIO v. EDMUND P. ANGULUAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A clear legal right means one clearly founded on or granted by law or is enforceable as a matter of law.[37] The existence of a right violated is a prerequisite to the granting of a writ of preliminary injunction.[38] A writ of preliminary injunction will not issue to protect a right not in esse and which may never arise.[39] It may be issued only if the applicant has clearly shown an actual existing right that should be protected during the pendency of the principal action.[40] In the absence of a clear legal right, or when the applicant's right or title is doubtful or disputed, preliminary injunction is not proper.[41]
	GR No. 156303 2007-12-19	PHILIPPINE LEISURE v. CA VELASCO JR., J.
In numerous instances and recently in Marquez v. The Presiding Judge (Hon. Ismael B. Sanchez), RTC Br. 58, Lucena City,[32] we explained that the writ of preliminary injunction is issued to prevent threatened or continuous irremediable injury to some of the parties before their claims can be thoroughly studied and adjudicated. Its sole aim is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard fully. Thus, it will be issued only upon a showing of a clear and unmistakable right that is violated. Moreover, an urgent necessity for its issuance must be shown by the applicant.