This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2010-11-22 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The sole object of a preliminary injunction as a provisional remedy is the preservation of the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard.[31 ]Status quo is defined as the last actual, peaceful, and uncontested status that precedes the actual controversy, that which exists at the time of the filing of the case.[32] | |||||
|
2009-10-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Sine dubio, the grant or denial of a writ of preliminary injunction in a pending case rests on the sound discretion of the court taking cognizance of the case, since the assessment and evaluation of evidence towards that end involves findings of facts left to the said court for its conclusive determination. Hence, the exercise of judicial discretion by a court in injunctive matters must not be interfered with, except when there is grave abuse of discretion.[27] | |||||
|
2007-06-08 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| More significantly, a preliminary injunction is merely a provisional remedy, an adjunct to the main case subject to the latter's outcome, the sole objective of which is to preserve the status quo until the trial court hears fully the merits of the case.[47] The status quo should be that existing at the time of the filing of the case.[48] The status quo usually preserved by a preliminary injunction is the last actual, peaceable and uncontested status which preceded the actual controversy.[49] The status quo ante litem is, ineluctably, the state of affairs which is existing at the time of the filing of the case. Indubitably, the trial court must not make use of its injunctive power to alter such status.[50] | |||||
|
2006-10-12 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The situation in this case bears similarity to that which transpired in Cortez-Estrada v. Heirs of Samut[23] Therein, the petitioner had failed to attach material documents to her petition before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals held the petition was dismissible for such procedural infirmities, yet it nonetheless proceeded to rule against the petitioner on the merits. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court that the petition was procedurally infirm, yet found partial merit in its arguments and consequently granted partial relief in favor of the petitioner. In this case, the Court of Appeals, in resolving the motion for reconsideration, proceeded to make a judgment on the merits. Similarly, this Court finds ample basis to review the decision of the trial court as affirmed by the appellate court, notwithstanding the procedural flaw that originally accompanied the petition-a flaw which petitioners did seek to remedy when they belatedly attached the relevant documents to their motion for reconsideration. | |||||
|
2006-09-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| (c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual. Otherwise stated, for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction to issue, the following requisites must be present, to wit: (1) the existence of a clear and unmistakable right that must be protected, and (2) an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.[67] Indubitably, this Court has likewise stressed that 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.[68] Sine dubio, the grant or denial of a writ of preliminary injunction in a pending case rests in the sound discretion of the court taking cognizance of the case since the assessment and evaluation of evidence towards that end involve findings of facts left to the said court for its conclusive determination.[69] Hence, the exercise of judicial discretion by a court in injunctive matters must not be interfered with except when there is grave abuse of discretion. [70] 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.[71] | |||||
|
2006-07-11 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Prefatorily, we note that what was granted by the trial court was the preliminary injunction, and that the main case for right of way has not yet been settled. We have in previous cases[9] said that the objective of a writ of preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be fully heard. Status quo is the last actual, peaceable and uncontested situation which precedes a controversy.[10] The Court of Appeals was correct in its findings that the last actual, peaceful and uncontested situation that preceded the controversy was solely the access of petitioner and his household to his property outside the subdivision for visits and inspections. At the time the writ was applied for in 1995, there was still no construction going on in the property. It was merely raw land. The use of the subdivision roads for ingress and egress of construction workers, heavy equipment, delivery of construction materials, and installation of power lines, are clearly not part of the status quo in the original writ. Along this line, the Court of Appeals properly set aside the amended writ and reinstated the original writ. | |||||