Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BEETHOVEN L. RUALO v. ELISEO P. PITARGUE

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 196864 2015-07-08	SPS. VICTOR P. DULNUAN AND JACQUELINE P. DULNUAN v. METROPOLITAN BANK PEREZ, J.
The status quo is the last actual, peaceable and uncontested situation which precedes a controversy.[16] The status quo should be that existing at the time of the filing of the case. A preliminary injunction should not establish new relations between the parties, but merely maintain or re-establish the pre-existing relationship between them.
	AM No. RTJ-11-2298 2012-02-22	ATTY. RENE O. MEDINA v. JUDGE VICTOR A. CANOY CARPIO, J.
Respondent judge should have been more cautious in issuing writs of preliminary injunctions because as consistently held these writs are strong arms of equity which must be issued with great deliberation."[5] In Fortune Life Insurance Co., Inc. v. Luczon,[6] the Court held the judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law when he failed to conduct a hearing prior to issuance of an injunction in violation of the Rules of Court. It was further emphasized in Zuño v. Cabredo,[7] where it was held that the act of respondent in issuing the TRO to enjoin the Bureau of Customs and its officials from detaining the subject shipment amounted to gross ignorance of the law.
	GR NO. 165849 2007-12-10	GILBERT G. GUY v. CA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, 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. For a party to be entitled to an injunctive writ, he must show that there exists a right to be protected and that the acts against which the injunction is directed are violative of this right.[11] In granting the respondents' application for injunctive relief and making the injunction permanent, the Court of Appeals (Seventh Division) found that they have shown their clear and established right to the disputed 20,160 shares of stock because: (1) they have physical possession of the two stock certificates equivalent to the said number of shares; (2) Lincoln Continental is a mere trustee of the Guy family; and (3) respondents constitute a majority of the board of directors of Northern Islands, and accordingly have management and control of the company at the inception of Civil Case No. 94-109444. The appellate court then ruled that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction in favor of Guy. The writ actually reduced the membership of Northern Islands board to just one member - Gilbert Guy. Moreover, he failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence his ownership of the shares of stock in question. The Court of Appeals then held there was an urgent necessity to issue an injunctive writ in order to prevent serious damage to the rights of respondents and Northern Islands.
	GR No. 169802 2007-06-08	OVERSEAS WORKERS WELFARE ADMINISTRATION v. ATTY. CESAR L. CHAVEZ 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]
	GR NO. 164548 2006-09-27	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. RJ VENTURES REALTY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The pivotal issue in the instant Petition is whether the Court of Appeals correctly reinstated the Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated 28 May 1999. Hence, the question is whether respondents RJVRD and RBN are entitled to the Writ of Preliminary Injunction. It is for this reason that we shall address and concern ourselves only with the assailed writ, but not with the merits of the case pending before the trial court. A preliminary injunction is merely a provisional remedy, adjunct to the main case subject to the latter's outcome.[62] It is not a cause of action in itself.[63]