This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-01-20 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Grave abuse of discretion is committed when an act is 1) done contrary to the Constitution, the law or jurisprudence; or 2) executed "whimsically or arbitrarily" in a manner "so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty, or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined." What constitutes grave abuse of discretion is such capricious and arbitrary exercise of judgment as that which is equivalent, in the eyes of the law, to lack of jurisdiction.[44] It does not encompass an error of law.[45] | |||||
|
2007-07-31 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| A preliminary mandatory injunction is a provisional remedy that parties may avail of for the preservation or protection of their rights or interests, and for no other purpose, during the pendency of the principal action.[10] Unlike an ordinary preliminary injunction, however, the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction is more cautiously regarded for the reason that it requires the performance of particular acts that go beyond the maintenance of the status quo.[11] As such, the requirements for its issuance are more stringent. Generally, a preliminary mandatory injunction may only issue in cases of extreme urgency and where the rights of the requesting party are clear and unmistakable. It may also issue in cases where the relative inconvenience bears strongly in the requesting party's favor, and where the effect of the mandatory injunction is to re-establish and maintain a pre-existing continuing relation between the parties, which was recently and arbitrarily interrupted by another party, rather than to establish a new relationship between and among the parties. Being an extraordinary remedy, the burden is on the requesting party to clearly show entitlement to the issuance thereof.[12] The requesting party or movant must show the existence of the right to be protected and that the subject of the injunction violates such right. Further, the movant must show that the invasion of such right is material and substantial and that there is an urgent need for the writ to prevent serious damage.[13] The petitioners failed to discharge such burden. | |||||