Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HERMINIO TAYAG v. AMANCIA LACSON

This case has been cited 10 times or more.

	GR No. 168008 2011-08-17	PETRONILO J. BARAYUGA v. ADVENTIST UNIVERSITY OF PHILIPPINES BERSAMIN, J.
A valid writ of preliminary injunction rests on the weight of evidence submitted by the plaintiff establishing: (a) a present and unmistakable right to be protected; (b) the acts against which the injunction is directed violate such right; and (c) a special and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damages.[22] In the absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of the injunctive writ constitutes grave abuse of discretion[23] and will result to nullification thereof. Where the complainant's right is doubtful or disputed, injunction is not proper. The possibility of irreparable damage sans proof of an actual existing right is not a ground for a preliminary injunction.[24]
	GR No. 184645 2009-10-30	JOSE T. BARBIETO v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Now, is Lt. Gen. Yano's issuance of the Order of Arrest under the aforedescribed circumstances violative of Maj. Gen. Barbieto's right to liberty and due process? The Court accords to Lt. Gen. Yano the presumption of good faith and regularity in the issuance of said Order of Arrest, having done the same in the course of the performance of his official duties. Other than this, the Court cannot make any more pronouncements on the matter. Suffice it to say that the need for a more extensive determination of said question, by itself, already negates Maj. Gen. Barbieto's insistence of a clear and well-established right that warrants the protection of a TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction. Where the complainant's (or in this case, petitioner's) right is doubtful or disputed, injunction is not proper.[33]
	GR No. 167884 2009-01-20	ENRICO S. EULOGIO v. SPS. CLEMENTE APELES AND LUZ APELES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
An option is a contract by which the owner of the property agrees with another person that the latter shall have the right to buy the former's property at a fixed price within a certain time. It is a condition offered or contract by which the owner stipulates with another that the latter shall have the right to buy the property at a fixed price within a certain time, or under, or in compliance with certain terms and conditions; or which gives to the owner of the property the right to sell or demand a sale.[22] An option is not of itself a purchase, but merely secures the privilege to buy. It is not a sale of property but a sale of the right to purchase. It is simply a contract by which the owner of the property agrees with another person that he shall have the right to buy his property at a fixed price within a certain time. He does not sell his land; he does not then agree to sell it; but he does sell something, i.e., the right or privilege to buy at the election or option of the other party. Its distinguishing characteristic is that it imposes no binding obligation on the person holding the option, aside from the consideration for the offer.[23]
	GR No. 161004 2008-04-14	TECNOGAS * PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK QUISUMBING, J.
A writ of preliminary injunction may be issued only upon clear showing by the applicant of the existence of the following: (1) a right in esse or a clear and unmistakable right to be protected; (2) a violation of that right; and (3) an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. In the absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of the injunctive writ constitutes grave abuse of discretion. [20]
	GR No. 169802 2007-06-08	OVERSEAS WORKERS WELFARE ADMINISTRATION v. ATTY. CESAR L. CHAVEZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A writ of preliminary injunction being an extraordinary event,[61] one deemed as a strong arm of equity or a transcendent remedy,[62] it must be granted only in the face of actual and existing substantial rights. In the absence of the same, and where facts are shown to be wanting in bringing the matter within the conditions for its issuance, the ancillary writ must be struck down for having been rendered in grave abuse of discretion.
	GR NO. 142255 2007-01-26	SAMAHAN NG MASANG PILIPINO SA MAKATI v. BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VELASCO, JR., J.
The instant action is essentially for prohibition, which is the issuance of a restraining order or writ of injunction against BCDA and the Municipality of Taguig. It is basic that in order for a restraining order or the writ of injunction to issue, the petitioner is tasked to establish and convincingly show the following: "(1) a right in esse or a clear and unmistakable right to be protected; (2) a violation of that right; (3) that there is an urgent and permanent act and urgent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage."[15]
	GR NO. 127967 2005-12-14	FEDERATED REALTY CORPORATION v. CA TINGA, J.
In a long line of cases, this Court has held that injunction is a preservative remedy aimed at protecting substantive rights and interests.[26] 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.[27] Where facts are not shown to bring the case within these conditions, the relief of injunction should be refused.[28]
	GR Nos. 139275-76 and 140949 2004-11-25	LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to prevent threatened or continuous irremediable injury to some of the parties before their claims can be thoroughly studied and adjudicated. To be entitled to an injunctive writ, the petitioner has the burden to establish the following requisites:[26]
	GR No. 140228 2004-11-19	FRANCISCO MEDINA v. GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The purpose of a preliminary injunction is 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.[16] Thus, to be entitled to an injunctive writ, the petitioner has the burden to establish the following requisites:[17]