ADDITIONAL NOTES ON PROVISIONAL REMEDIES

PURPOSE: PSSP

1. PRESERVE and PROTECT the rights/interests of the parties

2. SECURE the judgment
3. Preserve STATUS QUO
4. PRESERVE the subject matter of the action

PROV REMEDIES: AIRRS

1. Preliminary ATTACHMENT
2. Preliminary INJUNCTION
3. Receivership
4. Replevin
5. Support Pendente Lite
Enumeration is NOT EXCLUSIVE.

OTHER PROVISIONAL REMEDIES:

FAMILY COURT:

TPO/PPO
Visitation rights
Guardian ad litem
HDO
Spousal and Child Support
Administration of Common Property (A.M. 02-11-12, Circular 39-97)

WRIT OF AMPARO ( TWIP) -AM 07-9-12-SC). Note that the writ itself is an interim relief
Temporary Protection Order
Witness Protection Order
Inspection Order
Production Order

ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS

TEPO
TRO AND WPI issued but only by SC
Attachment under Rule 127 of the Rules of Court
Environmental Protection Order (EPO) AM 09-6-8-SC ,Rule 2, Sec 8)
PET FOR WRIT OF KALIKASAN – DISCOVERY OF MEASURES

NOTE: Writ of Kalikasan and Writ of Continuing Mandamus are in themselves interim reliefs
Ocular Inspection Order
Production and Inspection of documents/things (Rule 7, Sec. 12, AM 09-6-8-SC)

HUMAN SECURITY ACT – RA 9372

Inspection, Examination of Accounts and Freeze Order

Seizure and Sequestration of Accounts and Assets
Restriction of Travel

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (AM 07-11-08-SC)

Rule 5.4
Grounds for Interim Measures of Protection
1. Need to prevent irreparable loss of injury
2. Need to provide security for the performance of any obligation
3. Need to produce or preserve evidence
4. Need to compel any other appropriate act or omission

Interim Measures of Protection that court may grant to a party to arbitration

1. Preliminary injunction directed against party to arbitration

2. Preliminary attachment against property or garnishment of funds in the custody of a
bank or a third person
3. Appointment of receiver
4. Detention, preservation delivery or inspection of property
5. Assistance in enforcing interim measure of protection granted by arbitral tribunal when
the tribunal cannot enforce effectively (Rule 5.6)

RA 9262 (VAWC) Protection orders

BPO
TPO
PPO
HDO

Court which has jurisdiction over main case issues provisional remedies.
GR: Provisional remedies are interlocutory orders not subject to appeal. Remedy is by Rule 65
(certiorari) .
Exception: Support Pendente Lite is immediately executory even if interlocutory order.
 PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT

RENEWAL OF ATTACHMENT BOND NOT INDICATIVE OF INTENTION TO PROSECUTE:

The payment of an attachment bond is not the appropriate procedure to settle a legal dispute in
court. It could not be considered a substitute for the submission of necessary pleadings or
motions that would lead to prompt action on the case. (PABLO PUA V. LOURDER L. DEYT, G.R.
NO. 173336, November 26, 2012)

WRONGFUL ATTACHMENT:

As stated in Lazatin v. Twano, the SC laid down the rule that where there is wrongful attachment,
the attachment defendant may recover actual damages even without proof that the attachment
plaintiff acted in bad faith in securing the attachment. However , it is alleged and established that
the attachment was not only wrongful but also malicious, the attachment defendant may recover
moral and exemplary damages . Either way, the wrongfulness of the attachment does not
warrant the automatic award of damages to the attachment defendant; the latter must first
discharge the burden of proving the nature and extent of the loss or injury incurred by reason of
the wrongful attachment. (SPOUSES JOSEFA AND GREGORIO YU V. NGO YET , G.R. NO. 155868,
FEB. 6, 2007)

WRIT OF PREL. ATTACHMENT CANNOT BE ISSUED AGAINST THE PROPERTY OF A MUNICIPALITY:

Suability is different from liability. (Municipality of Hagonoy . Judge Dumdum, G.R. No. 168289,
March 22, 2010).

NOTE: If writ of attachment is issued in favor of the government ( Rep. of the Philippines or its
duly authorized representative), the filing of a bond is not required. If sheriff is sued for damages
as a result of the attachment, he will be represented by the Office of the Solicitor General and if
held liable, actual damages shall be paid out of the National Treasury.

Distinction between levy on attachment (Rule 57) and levy on execution ( Rule 39).

Levy on attachment or preliminary attachment is issued at the commencement of the action or

at any time before entry of judgment as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may
be recovered in the cases provided under Rule 57.

Levy on execution is the writ issued after judgment has become final and executory by which
the property of the judgment obligor is taken into the custody of the court before the sale of
the property on execution for the satisfaction of a final judgment. (Sec. 9(b), Rule 39)
 ADDITIONAL NOTES ON PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

EX-PARTE ISSUANCE : ONLY TRO but good for 72 hours only and due to extreme urgency ;
applicant will suffer grave injustice and great and irreparable injury.

Thereafter, 20 days (inclusive of 72 hours) by SUMMARY HEARING.

PREL. INJUNCTION : Only by NOTICE AND HEARING.

GRAVE OR IRREPARABLE INJURY DEFINED: actual, substantial and demonstrable but which
produce hurt, inconvenience or damage that can be estimated only upon conjecture, and not by
any accurate standard of measurement.

If damage that applicant may suffer is subject to mathematical computation and is proven is
fully compensable by damages, a preliminary injunction is not warranted.

Can an application for prel. Injunction be denied outright? YES – due to insufficiency as to form
and substance.

GR: Injunction cannot be issued by RTC to stop enforcement of a judgment of another RTC.
Exception: Third party claim over the properly levied by sheriff, said third party may vindicate
his claim by an INDEPENDENT action in the proper court which may issue an injunctive writ to
stop execution of judgment on property claimed by third party claimant. ( SALAS V. CASTRO, G.R.
NO. 100416, DEC.2, 1962).

Give at least five (5) exceptions to the general rule that courts cannot issue writs of prohibition
or injunction to restrain or enjoin any criminal prosecution.

Some exceptions are:

a. When the injunction is necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional

rights of the accused;
b. When it is necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or
multiplicity of actions;
c. When there is a prejudicial action that is subjudice;
d. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of jurisdiction;
e. When the prosecution is based under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation;
f. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
g. When the court has no jurisdiction over the offense;
h. When it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution;
i. When the charges are manifestly false and motivated by lust or vengeance;
 j. When there is clearly no prima facie evidence against the accused and a motion to
quash on that ground has been denied (BPI v. Judge Hontanosas, G.R. No. 157163, June
25 2014)

What is the quantum of evidence required in the application for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction?

Mere PRIMA FACIE evidence is sufficient to establish the applicant’s (movant) rights or interests
in the subject matter of the main action.
(Republic v. Evangelista, G.R. NO. 156015, August 11, 2005; Arsenio Lukang v. Pagbilao
Development Corporation, G.R. No. 195374, March 10, 2014).