Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BACOLOD CITY WATER DISTRICT v. EMMA C. LABAYEN

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR Nos. 217126-27 2015-11-10	CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES v. CA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The first paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770 is a prohibition against any court (except the Supreme Court[119]) from issuing a writ of injunction to delay an investigation being conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman. Generally speaking, "[injunction is a judicial writ, process or proceeding whereby a party is ordered to do or refrain from doing a certain act. It may be the main action or merely a provisional remedy for and as an incident in the main action."[120] Considering the textual qualifier "to delay," which connotes a suspension of an action while the main case remains pending, the "writ of injunction" mentioned in this paragraph could only refer to injunctions of the provisional kind, consistent with the nature of a provisional injunctive relief.
	GR No. 169802 2007-06-08	OVERSEAS WORKERS WELFARE ADMINISTRATION v. ATTY. CESAR L. CHAVEZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A preliminary injunction is granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order.[35] It persists until it is dissolved or until the termination of the action without the court issuing a final injunction.[36] To be entitled to an injunctive writ, petitioner must show, inter alia, the existence of a clear and unmistakable right and an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.[37] A writ of preliminary injunction is generally based solely on initial and incomplete evidence.[38] The evidence submitted during the hearing on an application for a writ of preliminary injunction is not conclusive or complete for only a "sampling" is needed to give the trial court an idea of the justification for the preliminary injunction pending the decision of the case on the merits.[39] In fact, the evidence required to justify the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction in the hearing thereon need not be conclusive or complete.[40] It must also be stressed that it does not necessarily proceed that when a writ of preliminary injunction is issued, a final injunction will follow.[41]
	GR NO. 168882 2007-01-31	INTESTATE ESTATE OF LATE NIMFA SIAN v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK CARPIO MORALES, J.
The short circuiting of the procedural process denied the petitioner due process of law. It was not able to allege its defenses in an answer and prove them in a hearing. . . . Over and above every desideratum in litigation is fairness. All doubts should be resolved in favor of fairness.[27]
	GR NO. 149493 2006-06-22	RAFAELITO M. GARAYBLAS v. JOSE L. ATIENZA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Injunction is a judicial writ, process or proceeding whereby a party is ordered to do or refrain from doing a certain act. It may be the main action or merely a provisional remedy for and as an incident in the main action.[35] The Court has distinguished the main action for injunction from the provisional or ancillary remedy of preliminary injunction, thus: The main action for injunction is distinct from the provisional or ancillary remedy of preliminary injunction which cannot exist except only as part or an incident of an independent action or proceeding. As a matter of course, in an action for injunction, the auxiliary remedy of preliminary injunction, whether prohibitory or mandatory, may issue. Under the law, the main action for injunction seeks a judgment embodying a final injunction which is distinct from, and should not be confused with, the provisional remedy of preliminary injunction, the sole object of which is to preserve the status quo until the merits can be heard. A preliminary injunction is granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order. It persists until it is dissolved or until the termination of the action without the court issuing a final injunction.[36] By praying for injunctive relief, petitioner did not intend to correct a wrong of the past, for redress of injury already sustained, but to prevent his ouster from membership in the Board. By his action for injunction, petitioner sought to preserve the status quo of things, to prevent actual or threatened acts which would violate the rules of equity and good conscience as would consequently afford him a cause of action resulting from the failure of the law to provide for an adequate or complete relief.[37]