This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2011-07-27 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| There is no reason for the Court to deviate from the foregoing findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. It is worth stressing that the assessment and evaluation of evidence in the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction involves findings of facts ordinarily left to the trial court for its conclusive determination. The Court has time and again ruled that conclusions and findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to great weight and should not be disturbed on appeal, unless strong and cogent reasons dictate otherwise. This is because the trial court is in a better position to examine the real evidence, as well as to observe the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying in the case.[24] | |||||
|
2006-07-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| We find that there was, indeed, grave abuse of discretion on the part of Judge Calingin. While we agree with petitioners that "the assessment and evaluation of evidence in the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction involves findings of facts ordinarily left to the trial court for conclusive determination,"[46] and that the Court of Appeals had been in error when it sought to determine the facts based on evidence not presented or offered in evidence in the trial court, we would still find grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court even if the facts contested by petitioners are determined in their favor. Section 5, Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure provides:Sec.5. Preliminary injunction not granted without notice; exception. - No preliminary injunction shall be granted without hearing and prior notice to the party or person sought to be enjoined. If it shall appear from facts shown by affidavits or by the verified application that great or irreparable injury would result to the applicant before the matter can be heard on notice, the court to which the application for preliminary injunction was made, may issue ex parte a temporary restraining order to be effective only for a period of twenty (20) days from service on the party or person sought to be enjoined, except as herein provided. Within the said twenty-day period, the court must order said party or person to show cause, at a specified time and place, why the injunction should not be granted, determine within the same period whether or not the preliminary injunction shall be granted, and accordingly issue the corresponding order. (Emphases supplied.) | |||||
|
2005-07-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Only two requisites are necessary for a preliminary injunction to issue: (1) the existence of a right to be protected and (2) the facts, against which the injunction is to be directed violate said right.[19] While a clear showing of the right is necessary, its existence need not be conclusively established. In fact, the evidence required to justify the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction need not be conclusive or complete. The evidence need only give the court an idea of the justification for the preliminary injunction, pending the decision of the case on the merits. Thus, to be entitled to the writ, petitioners are only required to show that they have an ostensible right to the final relief prayed for in their complaint.[20] | |||||
|
2003-08-05 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction rests entirely within the discretion of the court and is generally not interfered with except in cases of manifest abuse.[18] The assessment and evaluation of evidence in the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction involve findings of facts ordinarily left to the trial court for its conclusive determination.[19] | |||||
|
2002-08-01 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| by a party to protect or preserve his rights and for no other purpose during the pendency of the principal action.[11] Its object is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard.[12] It is not a cause of action in itself but merely a provisional remedy, an adjunct to a main suit.[13] Thus, a person who is not a party in the main suit, like private respondent in the instant case, cannot be bound by an ancillary writ, such as the writ of preliminary injunction issued against the defendants in Civil Case No. 6695. He cannot be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger.[14] Second, petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred when it observed that petitioner should have impleaded private respondent as defendant in Civil Case No. 6695 pursuant to Section 11, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.[15] | |||||
|
2000-10-30 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Two requisites are necessary if a preliminary injunction is to issue, namely: (1) the existence of a right to be protected and (2) the facts against which the injunction is to be directed are violative of said right.[39] | |||||