Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction

Section 3 of Rule 58 provides that a preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established:
a. That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief
consist in restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, or in
requiring the performance of an act or acts either for a limited period or perpetually;
b. That the commission, continuance or non-performance of the act or acts complained during
the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or
c. That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening to do, 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.

Grounds to prove before a writ of preliminary injunction will

issue
The following requisites must be proved before a writ of preliminary injunction will issue:
a. The applicant must have a clear and unmistakable right to be protected, that is, a right in
esse (The existence of a right to be protected, and the acts against which the writ is to be directed are violative of said right
must be established);
b. There is material and substantial invasion of such right;
c. The is urgent need for the writ to prevent irreparable injury to the applicant; and
d. No other ordinary, speedy and adequate remedy exists to prevent the infliction of irreparable
injury.

Meaning of clear right

A clear right means one clearly founded in or granted by law or is enforceable as a matter of law.
Note: In the absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of the writ constitutes grave abuse
of discretion. The possibility of irreparable damage without proof of an actual existing right is
not a ground for injunction.

Conclusive proof of existence of right is not demanded but

existing basis of fact
Conclusive proof of the existence of the right to be protected is not demanded, however, for, as the
Court held that for it to act, there must be an existing basis of facts affording a present right which is
directly threatened by an act sought to be enjoined. And while a clear showing of the right claimed
is necessary, its existence need not be conclusively established because the concern is only on the
propriety of the preliminary injunction and not the merits o the case still pending with the trial court.

Application and bond for preliminary injunction or temporary

restraining order
Under Section 4a and b of the Rule 58, a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order
(TRO) may be granted only when:
a. The application in the action or proceeding is verified;
b. Shows facts entitling the applicant to the relief demanded;
c. Unless exempted by the court, the application files with the court where the action or
proceeding is pending, a bond executed to the party or person enjoined; and
d. Upon approval of the requisite bond a writ of preliminary injunction shall be issued.
Section 4b of Rule 58 prescribes the amount of bond and purpose:
a. Amount of bond to be fixed by the court
b. Purpose is that the applicant will pay the party or person all damages which he may sustain
by reason of the injunction or TRO if the court finally decides that the applicant was not
entitled thereto.
Procedure if injunction or TRO is included in the complaint or initiatory pleading
When filed in a multi-sala court, it shall be raffled only after notice and in the presence of the
adverse party or the person to be enjoined. (Section 4, Rule 58)
Notice of raffle with prior or contemporaneous service of summons
The notice shall be preceded, or contemporaneously accompanied, by service of summons,
together with a copy of the complaint or initiatory pleading and the applicants affidavit and
bond, upon the adverse party in the Philippines (Section 4c, Rule 58)
When prior or contemporaneous service of summons is not applicable
a. When the summons could not be served personally or substituted service despite diligent
efforts;
b. The adverse party is a resident of the Philippines temporary absent therefrom; or
c. The adverse party is a nonresident (Section 4c, Rule 58)
When application for TRO shall be acted upon
The application for TRO shall be acted upon only after all the parties are heard in a
summary hearing which shall be conducted within twenty-four (24) hours after the sheriffs
return of service and/or the records are received by the branch selected by raffle and to
which the records shall be transmitted immediately. (Section 4d, Rule 58)

Bond for the grant of injunction and TRO

A preliminary injunction or TRO may be granted only when, among others, the applicant,
unless exempted by the court, files with the court where the action is pending, a bond
executed to the party or persons enjoined. Unless exempted, the posting of a bond is a
condition sine qua non in order that the writ of preliminary injunction may issue.

Purpose of the bond

The bond shall answer for all damages which a party or person may sustain by reason of
the injunction or TRO if the court finally decided that the applicant was not entitled thereto.
The bond shall answer for any and all damages arising from the injunction, regardless of
whether it was sustained before or after the filing of the injunction bond.

Preliminary injunction not granted without notice and exception

A writ of preliminary injunction cannot be issued ex-parte
No preliminary injunction shall be granted without hearing and prior notice to the party or
person sought to be enjoined. (1st paragraph, 1st sentence of Section 5, Rule 58)
When to issue TRO
If it shall appear from the facts shown by the affidavits or by the verified complaint that great
and irreparable injury should result to the applicant before the matter can be heard in notice.
(1st paragraph, 2nd sentence of Section 5, Rule 58)
Who issues an ex-parte TRO
The court to which the application for preliminary injunction was made may issue ex-parte a
TRO. (1st paragraph, 2nd sentence of Section 5, Rule 58)
Effectivity of the TRO issued ex-parte
Effective only for a period of twenty (20) days from service on the party or person sought to
be enjoined, except as herein provided. (1st paragraph, 2nd sentence of Section 5, Rule 58)
Requirement within the 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 and determine within the same period whether or not
the preliminary injunction shall be granted, and accordingly issue the corresponding order.
(1st paragraph, 3rd sentence of Section 5, Rule 58)
Who issues the ex-parte restraining order
Executive judge of a multi-sala court or presiding judge of a single sala. (2 nd paragraph, 1st
sentence of Section 5, Rule 58)

Under what circumstances

a. Matter is of extreme urgency; and
b. The applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury. (2 nd paragraph, 1st sentence of
Section 5, Rule 58)
Effectivity of TRO issued by executive judge of a multi-sala court or presiding judge of a single sala
Seventy-two (72) hours from issuance. The service of summons and the documents to be
served shall immediately be complied. (2nd paragraph, 1st sentence of Section 5, Rule 58)
Requirement within seventy-two (72) hours
The judge before whom the case is pending shall conduct a summary hearing to determine
whether the temporary restraining order shall be extended until the application for
preliminary injunction can be heard. (2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence of Section 5, Rule 58)
Total period of effectivity of TRO
In no case shall the total period of effectivity exceed twenty (20) days, including the original
seventy-two hours. (2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence of Section 5, Rule 58)
Effect if application for preliminary injunction is denied or not resolved
If preliminary injunction is denied or not resolved, the TRO is deemed automatically vacated.
(3rd paragraph, 1st sentence of Section 5, Rule 58)
TRO is not extendable
The effectivity of a temporary restraining order is not extendible without need of any judicial
declaration to that effect and no court shall have authority to extend or renew the same on
the same ground for which it was issued. (3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence of Section 5, Rule 58)
Effectivity of TRO issued by the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
Effective for sixty (60) days from service on the party or person sought to be
enjoined. (4th paragraph of Section 5, Rule 58)
Supreme Court
Effective until further orders. (4th paragraph of Section 5, Rule 58)
Period to decide the main case
The trial court, the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Tax Appeals that
issued a writ of preliminary injunction against a lower court, board, officer, or quasi-judicial
agency shall decide the main case or petition within six (6) months from the issuance of the
writ. (Section 5, Rule 58)

TRO has a non-extendible life of twenty (20) days

A TRO has a non-extendable life of twenty (20) days and upon the expiration of which, it
dies a natural death.

Validity of extension of TRO by agreement of the parties

In Federation of Land Reform Farmers of the Philippines v. Court of appeals, GR No. 88384,
July 14, 1994, the extension of the TRO by agreement of the parties was sustain by the
court when the efficacy of the parties themselves themselves ask for such extension or for
the maintenance of the status quo, because the court merely exercised its inherent power
under Section 5b, Rule 135 to enforce order in proceeding before it in the absence of any
showing that it has gravely abuse its discretion in so doing.

Supreme Court can extent TRO

In Asset Privatization Trust v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 101344, October 1, 1992, the
Supreme Court held that the lower court and CA cannot extend the twenty (20) day
effectivity period of the TRO, only the Supreme Court Can.

Concept of injury or irreparable injury or damages are

irreparable
In Heirs of Melencio Yu and Talinanap Matualaga v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 182371,
September 4, 2013, the court held that Damages are irreparable within the meaning of the
rule relative to the issuance of injunction where there is no standard by which their amount
can be measured with reasonable accuracy . "An irreparable injury which a court of equity
will enjoin includes that degree of wrong of a repeated and continuing kind which produce
hurt, inconvenience, or damage that can be estimated only by conjecture, and not by any
accurate standard of measurement." An irreparable injury to authorize an injunction consists
of a serious charge of, or is destructive to, the property it affects, either physically or in the
character in which it has been held and enjoined, or when the property has some peculiar
quality or use, so that its pecuniary value will not fairly recompense the owner of the loss
thereof.

Meaning of Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)

TRO is an interlocutory order issued in a case to maintain the subject matter of the
controversy in status quo.

Distinction of TRO from preliminary injunction

TRO
May be granted ex parte if great and irreparable
injury would result otherwise
Shall be effective only for a non-extendable
period of twenty (20) days
Issued to preserve a status quo until the hearing
for the preliminary injunction

Preliminary injunction
Cannot be granted without notice and hearing
May ripen into a permanent injunction
Can be issued even without a TRO

Distinction of status quo order and TRO

Status quo order is intended to maintain the last, actual, peaceable and uncontested state of
things preceded the controversy.
Resorted to when the projected proceedings in the case made the conservation of the status
quo desirable or essential, but the affected parties neither sought such relief or the
allegations in his pleading did not sufficiently make out a case for a temporary restraining
order.
More in the nature of cease and desist order since it neither directs the doing or undoing of
an act.
Does not require the posting of a bond

Violation of TRO is indirect contempt of court

Violation of a TRO constitutes indirect contempt under Section 3 of Rule 71

Purpose of TRO and when can be issued

The purpose of a TRO is to prevent a threatened wrong and to protect the property or right
involved from further injury, until the issues can be determined after the hearing on the
merits. (NASECOR v. ERG, GR No. 190795, July 6, 2011)
The TRO may be issued only if it appears from the facts shown by affidavits or by a verified
application that great or irreparable injury would be incurred by an applicant before a writ of
preliminary injunction could be heard. (Section 5, Rule 58)

Courts should no issue injunction which in effect disposes the

main case
Courts should avoid issuing a writ of preliminary injunction which would in effect dispose of
the main case without trial. (Ngo v. Allied Banking Corporation, GR No. 177420, October 6,
2010)

Grounds for Objection, or for motion of dissolution of,

injunction or restraining order
The grounds to object, deny or dissolve the application for injunction or TRO are as follows:
a. Showing of its insufficiency
b. Upon the affidavits of the party or person enjoined, which may also be opposed by the
applicant by affidavits

c. If the applicant is although entitled to the injunction or restraining order, the issuance or
continuance, as the case may be:

Would cause irreparable damage to the party or person enjoined;

The applicant can be fully compensated for such damages; and
The party enjoined files a counter bond (Section 6, Rule 58)

Amount of counter-bond to dissolve injunction

The amount is fixed by the court
Purpose of the counter-bond to dissolve injunction
To pay all damages which the applicant may suffer by the denial or the dissolution of the
injunction or restraining order. (3rd Sentence of Section 6, Rule 58)
When preliminary injunction or restraining order can be modified
If it appears that the extent of the preliminary injunction or restraining order granted is too
great, it may be modified (Last sentence of Section 6, Rule 58)
When hearing is necessary for the denial or dissolution of injunction or TRO
If the applicant is although entitled to the injunction or restraining order, the issuance or
continuance, as the case may be:

Would cause irreparable damage to the party or person enjoined;

The applicant can be fully compensated for such damages; and
The party enjoined files a counter bond (Last sentence of Section 6, Rule 58)

Hearing is not necessary for the denial or dissolution of injunction or TRO

Hearing is not necessary if the ground is insufficiency of the complaint, which is apparent
from the complaint itself, preliminary injunction can be refused outright, with or without
notice to adverse party or on the basis of the affidavits which may have been submitted by
the parties in connection with such application.
Effect of dismissal of a complaint on injunction or TRO
In Buyco v. Braquia, GR No. 177486, December 21, 2009, the Supreme court held that a
dismissal, discontinuance or non-suit of an action in which a restraining order or temporary
injunction has been granted operates as a dissolution of the restraining order or temporary
injunction," regardless of whether the period for filing a motion for reconsideration of the
order dismissing the case or appeal therefrom has expired. The rationale therefor is that
even in cases where an appeal is taken from a judgment dismissing an action on the merits,
the appeal does not suspend the judgment, hence the general rule applies that a temporary
injunction terminates automatically on the dismissal of the action.

Rule on service of copies of bonds and effects of its

disapproval
Service of copy of bond
The party filing a bond shall forthwith serve a copy of such bond on the other .
Effect if applicants bond is insufficient, surety fails to justify and bond not filed
The injunction shall be dissolved if the applicants bond is found to be:
Insufficient in amount;
If the surety or sureties fail to justify; and
A bond sufficient in amount with sufficient sureties after justification is not filed. (2 nd
Sentence of Section 7, Rule 58)
Effect if adverse partys bond is insufficient, surety fails to justify and bond not filed
The injunction shall be granted or restored if the bond of the adverse party is found to be:
Insufficient in amount;
The surety or sureties thereon fail to justify a bond sufficient in amount with sufficient
sureties approved after justification. (3rd Sentence of Section 7, Rule 58)

Judgment to include damages against party and sureties

At the trial, the amount of damages to be awarded to either party, upon the bond of the
adverse party, shall be claimed, ascertained, and awarded under the same procedure
prescribed in Section 20 of Rule 57. (Section 8, Rule 58)
Section 20 of Rule 58 provides that:
Claim for damages on account of improper, irregular or excessive attachment. An
application for damages on account of improper, irregular or excessive attachment must be
filed before the trial or before appeal is perfected or before the judgment becomes
executory, with due notice to the attaching party and his surety or sureties setting forth the
facts showing his right to damages and the amount thereof. Such damages may be awarded
only after proper hearing and shall be included in the judgment on the main case.
If the judgment of the appellate court be favorable to the party against whom the attachment
was issued he must claim damages sustained during the pendency of the appeal by filing an
application in the appellate court, with notice to the party in whose favor the attachment was
issued or his surety or sureties, before the judgment of the appellate court becomes
executory. The appellate court may allow the application to be heard and decided by the trial
court.
Nothing herein contained shall prevent the party against whom the attachment was issued
from recovering in the same action the damages awarded to him from any property of the
attaching party not exempt from execution should the bond or deposit given by the latter be
insufficient or fail to fully satisfy the award.

When claimant losses right to damages

By failing to file a motion for the determination of damages on time and while the judgment
is still under control of the court, the claimant losses such right to damages. (Sy v Ceniza,
GR No. L-16961, June 29, 1962)
Damages can be raised by the claimant as a counterclaim
The claimant against whom an injunction was issued can raise damages as a counterclaim
in the answer.

When to grant final injunction

If after the trial of the action it appears that the applicant is entitled to have the act or acts
complained of permanently enjoined, the court shall grant a final injunction perpetually
restraining the party or person enjoined from the commission or continuance of the act or
acts or confirming the preliminary mandatory injunction. (Section 10, Rule 58)