Rule 58 - (2/5) Preliminary Injunction

Question 1

RULE 58
Ching v. CA

Answer 1

A court cannot interfere by injunction of another court of co-equal rank or a court with concurrent or coordinate jd

Question 2

Estonina v. CA

Answer 2

With Ching v. CA in mind, the SC held the ruling in Ching is NOT applicable when a third party is involved who files a separate action in another court for the recovery of the property wrongfully attached by sheriff.

A and B dispute, Sheriff attaches C’s properties mistakenly. C can file in a different court of co-equal rank for a P.I.

Question 3

Acting Solicitor General v. RTC J. Esma

Answer 3

appealed decision attains finality in RTC 17 and remands the records of the case to the MTC for execution,

Losing Illegal Settlers filed PI in RTC 13 under Judge Esma prohibiting the enforcement, an RTC judge issues an injunctive relief contending that it is now no longer of the same court since the case is now in the MTC so he can order a PI.

The SC declared such to be improper as J. Esma did not enjoin the MTC but enjoined the enforcement of the decision of the RTC, a co-equal court.

Question 4

Zuno v Cabredo

Answer 4

Collector of Customs has exclusive JD over seizure & forfeiture proceedings and regular courts cannot interfere with

such that any injunctive relief by a regular court prohibiting/mandating the Bureau of Customs is improper

Question 5

Andres v. Cuevas

Answer 5

Injunctive relief prohibiting filing of a criminal case

[when to]
issue in civil cases posing a prejudicial question such that the civil case is determinative of the issue in the criminal case

Question 6

RP v. Major Garcia Sandiganbayan

Answer 6

Republic may be exempt from posting of an attachment bond as the Republic is presumed to be solvent at all times.

Question 7

Mr. Dizon filed a labor case before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) against his employer, JBC Corporation, and won. The NLRC issued a decision in Mr. Dizon’s favor, ordering JBC Corporation to pay his back wages and other benefits. However, prior to the execution of the NLRC’s decision, Phoenix Logistics, filed a petition before the (RTC) seeking injunctive relief to stop the NLRC from enforcing its decision against JBC Corporation, claiming that Phoenix has legal rights over certain assets that the NLRC intended to levy in satisfaction of the judgment.

Dizon responds states that the regular courts cannot issue injunction against quasi-judicial body co-equal in rank

Can the RTC issue an injunction against the NLRC?

Answer 7

Yes, the issuance is valid

GR: RTC is not allowed to issue an injunction against a quasi-judicial body co-equal in rank like the SSC and SEC

in the case of Philippine Pacific Fishing Company, the SC ruled that the RC cannot enjoin the NLRC if the applicant is a party disputant [except] if the one seeking injunctive relief is a third party then there can be injunctive relief against the NLRC

Question 8

A filed ejectment case in RTC. B filed motion to dismiss which is denied by RTC judge.

B files a prohibition (65) before CA to prohibit RTC from proceeding and

B applies for a writ of preliminary prohibitive injunction so that RTC will not declare B in default

RTC argues that since there is a preliminary injunction filed by B, B should post a Bond.

Rule on the matter

Answer 8

In the case of Lim v. Callejo, filing of a bond is NOT required because RTC Judge cannot claim for damages arising from the issuance of the writ

Question 9

characterisitic of a PI

Answer 9

1. ancillary remedy
2. in the nature or purpose of preserving the status quo ante of the case
3. addressed to the judicious wisdom of the court

Question 10

A is losing respondent in labor case. A filed an appeal before the NLRC but affirms B so you question such ruling under R65.

can A file TRO?

Answer 10

Yes, A can file a PI/TRO in his petition for certiorari

Question 11

Gra filed ejectment case in RTC. Gal filed motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of JD but RTC denied Gal’s motion.

[a] what is the remedy of Gal?

[b] how to ensure that Gal will not be in default while at the same time not let the RTC acquire JD over him

Answer 11

[a] question denial via Certiorari [or] **prohibition

[b] apply for TRO/writ of PI so that RTC will not proceed to hear the case & declare Gal in default

Question 12

in what other instances can a writ of PI be had provded there is a main action?

Answer 12

in a case for
- petition for relif from judgment (R38)
- annulment of judgment (57)

Question 13

A sued B & decision attained finality. B was denied his day in court as he was not served with summons so he files a petition for annulment of judgment.

[a]
what is the remedy if there is already a writ of execution issued by the RTC against B?

[b]
knowledge check: petition for relief when available?

Answer 13

(1)
in B’s petition for annulment of judgment, he should apply as well TRO/writ of PI

[b]
petition from relief of judgment only available after decision is final and within the period of 60 days from knowledge but not beyond 6 months from time judgment has been entered

Question 14

PI vs. Status Quo Ante Order

Answer 14

[PI]
- prohibits (preliminary prohibitory inunction**) or mandates (preliminary mandatory injunction)

[SQAO]
- merely directs parties to observe the status quo meaning the court does not prohibit or command performance

Question 15

Injunction as an action

vs.

Writ of Preliminary Injunction

Answer 15

[Injunction as an Action]
- in itself a cause of action
- permanent/perpetual injunction
- part of main judgment
- granted after full blown trial
- remedy against is appeal

[Writ of Preliminary Injunction]
- supplement/ancillary to the main action
- injunction pending the case
- interlocutory order before main judgment
- hearing required & is granted by presentation of sample evidence
- remedy is certiorari

note
4 - sample evidence in the writ of PI is adapted in the main case w/o prejudice to additional evidence

Question 16

PROHIBITION as a main action (R65)

vs.

Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction (58)

Answer 16

65
- special civil action thus a main action
- directed against tribunals, boards exercising judicial functions etc.
- issues is (1) lack of JD/excess of JD [or] (2) grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of JD

[58]
- prov rem, ancillary remedy
- generally directed against litigant/party
- JD is irrelevant

Question 17

MANDAMUS (R65)

vs.

Preliminary MANDATORY injunction (58)

Answer 17

65
- main action
- actually directed against tribunal, court, officer, person
- performance of act is ministerial on part of the respondent amounting to lack/excess of JD

58
- prov rem
- generally directed against party/litigant
- irrelevant whether act is ministerial or the act is discretionary

Question 18

3 kinds of Injunctive Reliefs

Answer 18

1. TRO
2. writ of PI
3. permanent injunction

note
what is first issued is TR0, then PI, then if warranted main injunction

Question 19

TRO

vs

PI

Answer 19

[TRO]
- XPN: granted ex parte [or] without hearing/notice on the ground of great & irreparable injury
- preserved status quo until hearing of the application for PI
- valid for 20 days

[PI]
- only granted upon notice to the party
- preserve status quo until merits of case is heard
- valid throughout proceedings until dissolved or denied in judgment

Question 20

[a]
WHO can issue TROs?

[b]
reckoning point for its validity

[c]
assume that TRO is issued for 20 days, is hearing mandatory afterwards?

Answer 20

[A]
20 days - RTC judges
3 days - only Executive judge of a multi-sala court [or] presiding judgge of a single sala court on the ground of great & irreparable injurieis

[B]
72 reckon from date of issuance
20 reckon copy of TRO is served on the adverse party

[C]
Yes, as this hearing is to determine the propriety of issuing not TRO but issuing of Writ of PI

Question 21

[A]
Lifespan of TRO

[B]
Enforcement of TRO

Answer 21

[A]
MTC/RTC - 20

CA - 60

SC - Until further orders

[B]
MTC/RTC - respective judicial region
CA/SC - anywhere in Phil

Question 22

knowledge check: can you file case for injunction in the MTC?

Answer 22

no, you cannot file a main action of injunction in the MTC as it is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation. the court that has exclusive & original JD is the RTC. (BP 129, par. 1, sec 19)

however, the MTC can issue Writ of Preliminary Injunctions

Question 23

Judge Muneva, an executive judge, issued a 72-hour TRO and raffled the case landed on Judge Adviento.

how long can she extend the lifespan of the TRO?

Answer 23

Factoring the 3 days TRO from Muneva,

• after NOTICE & SUMMONS to the adverse party

Judge Adviento can extend the TRO to 17 days in a summary hearing w/in the 72 hour period

Question 24

if court issues PI or denies application of PI, it is the same effect to TRO that it ends the TRO, but what if the court failed to resolve the issue for issuance of PI w/in the 20 day period? Can the TRO be extended or renewed?

Answer 24

GR: No, the court cannot extend/renew the TRO issued beyond its 20 day lifespan (Issued by MTC/RTC)

XPN: Same court can issue another TRO based on another compelling ground

ex of another compelling ground
1st TRO: blocking road, then 20 day lapse
2n TRO: throwing of road spikes to prevent passage

Question 25

GROUNDS for issuance of PI based on RoC

Answer 25

(a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists 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 of during the litigation would PROBABLY work injustice to the applicant; or

(c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, 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.

Question 26

Jurisprudential Requirements for issuing a writ of PI

LB:

Answer 26

1. exists a clear & unmistakable right to be protected (right en esse
2. right is DIRECTLY threatened by act
3. invasion of right is material & substantial
4. there is an URGENT & PARAMOUNT necessity for the writ to prevent serious & irreparable damage

AMA Land, Inc. v. Wack Wack Residents Associations

TN: irreparable meaning not solely pecuniary losses but it would tarnish (reputation) that is irreparable

Question 27

What are the formal requirements of an application for a writ of PI

Answer 27

1. there has to be a verified application
2. it must be accompanied by affidavits
3. there has to be posting of the bond

Question 28

Mr. X filed a case for ejectment before the RTC against Mr. Y. In response, Mr. Y filed a motion to dismiss, but the RTC judge, Judge Z, denied it. Fearing that he might be declared in default, Mr. Y filed a petition for prohibition before the Court of Appeals (CA) to prevent Judge Z from proceeding with the ejectment case. Along with his petition, Mr. Y also prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary prohibitive injunction against Judge Z to stop him from taking further action.

The CA granted Mr. Y’s application for an injunctive writ. However, the CA required Mr. Y to post a bond to cover any damages that might arise from the issuance of the injunction.

Is the requirement to post a bond proper under the circumstances?

Answer 28

No, as the case of Lim v. Callejo. Posting of bond is not necessary as damages as the judge of the RTC cannot claim damages arising from issuance

Question 29

notification about the raffling of the case in application for writ of PI

Answer 29

when a complaint includes a prayer for PI, as a rule, BEFORE raffling, the adverse party would have to be notified about the raffling of the case [so that] the party may personally [or] thru representative appear during & observe the raffling of the case.

Question 30

Instances where part cannot be personally served with summons or substituted SoS

Answer 30

the requirement of prior [or] contemporary SoS can be foregone such that raffling of the case will proceed even if adverse party not been served

Question 31

how to object the application for a writ of injunction

Answer 31

• not verified
• no bond
• no valid ground
• adverse party stand to suffer damage which is irreparable [and] put counterbond

Question 32

just like in attachment, award of damages can be charged against the bond/counterbond the parties put up

file seperate or same?

Answer 32

same action

Question 33

INSTANCES where Court is to refrain from issuing an injunctive writ

Answer 33

1. Implementation of Gov’t Infrastructure Projects (RA 8975, only SC can enjoin implementation
2. Lawful actions of Gov’t Agencies enforcing ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
3. Collection of any National Internal Revenue Tax (RA 8424)
4. Injunctive relief against the BSP from examining any institution under its supervision (RA 7653)
5. AMLA (only CA & SC can enjoin AMLA council from freezing an account)
6. Extrajudicial Foreclosure of Mortgage based on unconscionable interest rate unless debtor pays at least 12% p.a. interest on the principal obligation (A.M. 99-10-05-0)

• 1M | cannot issue TRO unless 120k is paid annually

7. Injunctive writ against the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) [RA 6657]
   - president is the RP so co-equal branch
8. Injunctive writ against Asset Privatization Trust (APT) [Proclamation No. 50-A]
9. Injunction against Quasi-Judicial body co-equal rank [SSC & SEC]

Question 34

The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) initiated an operation to demolish illegal structures built within a protected forest reserve, citing violations of environmental laws. Mr. X, one of the property owners, filed a case before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), seeking to stop the DNR from carrying out the demolition. He also filed an application for a writ of preliminary injunction to halt the DNR’s enforcement actions while the case was being heard.

The RTC granted the injunction, effectively preventing the DNR from enforcing the environmental laws in the area.

Is the RTC’s issuance of the injunction proper? Explain.

Answer 34

No, the issuance is improper as actions of the government relating to enforcement of environmental laws is an instance where the court cannot issue a PI.

However, the SC can enjoin the gov’t agency