Rule 58: Preliminary

Injunction

Section 1.Preliminary
Injunction
Section 1.Preliminary injunction
defined;classes. A preliminary
injunction is an order granted at any
stage of an action or proceeding prior to
the judgment or final order, requiring a
party or a court, agency or a person to
refrain from a particular act or acts. It may
also require the performance of a particular
act or acts, in which case it shall be known
as a preliminary mandatory injunction.

Notes on section 1:
Preliminary Injunction (sec 1, Rule 59)
-is a preservative remedy to ensure the
protection of a partys right substantial right
or interests pending the final judgment in a
principal action
(Thunder Security and Investment Agency v
National Food Authority GR 182042. 2011)
-is an order granted at any stage of an
action prior to the judgment or final order
therein (sec 1, Rule 59)

 Final Injunction (sec 9, Rule 59)

-is one issued in the judgment in the case
permanently restraining the defendant or making
the preliminary injunction permanent.
-Injunction may be an action in itself, brought
specifically to restrain or command the
performance of an act like those in art 26 of NCC:
Prying into privacy of anothers residence, Meddling
with or disturbing the private life or family relations
of another, Intriguing to cause another to be
alienated from his friends; and Vexing or
humiliating another on account of his religious

 Injunction (final injunction) may be an action in

itself, brought specifically to restrain or command
the performance of an act like those in art 26 of
NCC: Prying into privacy of anothers residence,
Meddling with or disturbing the private life or
family relations of another, Intriguing to cause
another to be alienated from his friends; and
Vexing or humiliating another on account of his
religious belief, lowly station in life, place of birth,
physical defect, or other personal condition
(Manila Banking Corp et al v CA L-45961. 1990)

 In an action for injunction, the auxiliary

remedy of preliminary injunction,
prohibitory or mandatory, may issue (BPI v
Hong 666 SCRA 71)

 Injunction may also be:

a) Preventive (or Prohibitive): when it
requires a person to refrain from doing a
particular act, or
b) Mandatory: when it requires the
performance of a particular act.

 Prohibitory Injunction
-the act has not yet been performed
because it is restrained or prevented by
the injunction
-purpose: prevent a future or threatened
injury
-[effect]: preserves status quo

 Mandatory Injunction
-act already performed and this act has
violated the rights of another
-since the act is already performed, the
purpose of the injunction is to:
>Restore the status quo, and then
>Preserve the status quo which has been
restored
(Govt of Butuan v Consolidated Broadcasting
System. 636 SCRA 320. 2010)

 hence, even if acts complained of have

already been committed, but such acts are
continuing in nature and were in
derogation of plaintiffs rights at the
outset, preliminary mandatory injunction may
be availed of to restore the parties to the
status quo (Dayrit v De los Santos 18 Phil 275)
Hence, the dispossessor in forcible entry can
be compelled to restore possession to the
original possessor (art 539 NCC)

 And an electric company can be compelled

to provisionally reconnect the service it
had disconnected and which act is assailed
in the main action (Meralco v Del Rosario
etc 22 Phil 433).

 Thus, the court has a more cautious

regard for Preliminary Mandatory
Injunction than a mere prohibitive
injunction since, more than its function of
preserving the status quo between the
parties, it also commands the performance
of an act.
(De la Rosa v Hrs of Juan Valdez 654 SCRA
467. 2011)

 The purpose or primary objective of a

preliminary injunction, whether Prohibitory or
Mandatory is to preserve the status quo
until the merits of the case can be heard (Sps
Castro v Sps De la Cruz 639 SCRA 187. 2011)
Status quo: is the last actual, peaceful, and
uncontested status that precedes the actual
controversy, that which is existing at the time
of the filing of the case (Cortez-Estrada v Hrs
of Domingo 451 SCRA 275)

 Preliminary Injunction is an action in

personam, requiring the person to whom
it is directed to do or refrain from doing a
particular thing (Gainsberg v Dodge 193
Art 478)
Preliminary Injunction is not a judgment on
the merits of the case. It requires only
prima facie evidence, not conclusive
proof. (Developing Group of Companies v
CA et al GR 104583. 1993)

Section 2. Who may grant

preliminary injunction.
Section 2.Who may grant
preliminary injunction. A
preliminary injunction may be
granted by the Court where the
action or proceeding is pending. If
the action or proceeding is pending
in the Court of Appeals or in the
Supreme Court, it may be issued by
said court or any member thereof.

Notes on Section 2:
Court that issues writ of Preliminary Injunction
is the court where the principal action is
pending (sec 2, Rule 59)
>ex: in Forcible and Unlawful Detainer Case
(Rule 70), can file motion for Writ of Preliminary
Mandatory Injunction [to restore in possession]
-within 5 days from filing of complaint in
MTC/MeTC
-within 10 days from the perfection of an
appeal to the RTC

 If the main injunction is for INJUNCTION,

can the MTC grant Preliminary Injunction
as an ancillary writ?

 Ans: No. This is because an action for

injunction is one incapable of pecuniary
estimation (and under sec 19 [1] of BP 129
as amended, the RTC shall exercise
exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil
actions in which the subject matter of the
litigation is incapable of pecuniary
estimation [meaning its one other than for
the recovery of money])
(Raymundo v CA 213 SCRA 457, 461)

 Where the principal action or proceeding is

pending in the CA, the application for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction
must be made with the CA or any of its
members.
If it is pending in the SC, then the
application must be made with that court
and the writ may also be issued by the
same court or any member thereof (sec 2,
Rule 59).

Section 3. Grounds for the issuance

of preliminary injunction.
Section 3.Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction. 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 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.

Notes on Section 3:
Sec 3 of Rule 59 provides for the requisites for
the granting of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction
whether Mandatory or Prohibitory: CMUN
a) Clean and unmistakable right, a right in esse;
b) Material and substantial invasion of such
right;
c) Urgent need to issue the writ in order to
prevent irreparable injury to the applicant;
d) No other ordinary, speedy, and adequate
remedy exists to prevent the infliction of
irreparable injury

(Ngo v Allied Banking Corp 632 SCRA 391/ 2010)

(Sps Castro v De la Cruz 639 SCRA 187/ 2011)
(Neriovin Industries Corp v PNOC-Energy Devt
Corp 669 SCRA 173/ 2012)
Quantum of Evidence required: ostensible right
or Prima Facie Evidence (at summary hearing)
(China Banking Corp v Sps Ciriaco GR 170038/
2012)

 Action for Damages would negate

Injunction
The writ of injunction should never issue
when an action for damages would
adequately compensate the injuries
caused (Power sites & Signs Inc v United
Neon GR 163406. 2009)

Section 4.
Section 4. Verified application and bond
for preliminary injunction or temporary
restraining order. A preliminary
injunction or temporary restraining
order may be granted only when:
(a) The application in the action or
proceeding is verified, and shows facts
entitling the applicant to the relief
demanded; and

 (b) Unless exempted by the court the applicant

files with the court where the action or
proceeding is pending, a bond executed to the
party or person enjoined, in an amount to be
fixed by the court, to the effect that the applicant
will pay to such party or person all damages
which he may sustain by reason of the injunction
or temporary restraining order if the court should
finally decide that the applicant was not entitled
thereto. Upon approval of the requisite bond, a
writ of preliminary injunction shall be issued.

 (c) When an application for a writ of preliminary

injunction or a temporary restraining order is
included in a complaint or any initiatory pleading,
the case, if filed in a multiple-sala court, shall
be raffled only after notice to and in the presence
of the adverse party or the person to be enjoined.
In any event, such notice shall be preceded, or
contemporaneously accompanied, by Service of
summons, together with a Copy of the complaint
or initiatory pleading and the applicant's Affidavit
and Bond, upon the adverse party in the
Philippines.

 However, where the Summons could

not be served personally or by
substituted service despite diligent
efforts, or the adverse party is a
Resident of the Philippines
temporarily absent therefrom or is a
Nonresident thereof, the requirement
of prior or contemporaneous service
of summons shall not apply.

 (d) The application for a temporary

restraining order shall thereafter be
acted upon only after all parties
are heard in a summary hearing
which shall be conducted within
twenty-four (24) hours after the
sheriff's return of service and/or the
records are received by the branch
selected by raffle and to which the
records shall be transmitted

Notes on Section 4:
Steps in issuance of a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction or TRO:
a) Verified application
-absence of a verification makes an
application or petition for preliminary
injunction patently insufficient in form and
substance) (Rivera v Mirasol 434 SCRA
315)

b)Establish
-existence of a clear and unmistakable
right that must be protected;
-urgent and paramount necessity for the
writ to prevent serious damage (Perez v
Madrona 668 SCRA 696/ 2012)

c)Applicant must post a Bond, unless

exempted by the court
-purpose of the bond: to protect the defendant
against Loss or Damages by reason of the
injunction in case the court finally decides that
the plaintiff was not entitled to it and the bond
is usually conditioned accordingly (Land Bank
of Phil v Heirs of Listana 646 SCRA 416. 2011)
-bond required for both Preliminary Injunction
or Temporary Restraining Order, unless
exempted by the Court

 If it is a multiple-sala court, NOTICE shall be

given given to the adverse party or the person
to be enjoined and their presence is required
before the case may be raffled
In addition, there must be proof of prior or
contemporaneous (with notice):
-Service of summons with
-Copy of the complaint of initiatory pleading
-Copy of applicants affidavit and bond on
adverse party

 When prior or contemporary service of

summons is not required:
-where the summons could not be served
upon the defendant either in Person or by
Substituted service despite diligent efforts
-defendant is Temporarily out of the
Philippines or
-when he is a Non-resident (sec 4 [c], Rule
58, ROC)

 After the raffle, the records of the case

shall be immediately transmitted to the
branch selected, which shall conduct a
summary hearing within 24 hours from
the sheriffs return of service to all the
parties who shall be heard thereon.
(same procedure in single sala court court,
but no need for raffle)

d) Hearing
-Summary Hearing
(no preliminary injunction shall be granted
without hearing and prior notice to the
party or persons sought to be enjoined)
(sec. 5 Rule 58)

Section 5. Preliminary Injunction not

granted without notice; exception
Section 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 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

 However, and subject to the provisions of the

preceding sections, if the matter is of Extreme
urgency and the applicant will suffer Grave
injustice and irreparable injury, the
executive judge of a multiple-sala court or the
presiding judge of a single sala court may
issueex partea temporary restraining order
effective for only seventy-two (72) hours from
issuance but he shall immediately comply with
the provisions of the next preceding section as to
service of summons and the documents to be
served therewith.

 Thereafter, within the aforesaid seventytwo (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. In no case shall the total period of
effectivity of the temporary restraining order
exceed twenty (20) days, including the
original seventy-two hours provided herein.

 In the event that the application for

preliminary injunction is denied or not
resolved within the said period, the
temporary restraining order is deemed,
automatically vacated. 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.

 However, if issued by the Court of

Appeals or a member thereof, the
temporary restraining order shall be
effective for sixty (60) days from
service on the party or person
sought to be enjoined. A restraining,
order issued by the Supreme Court
or a member thereof shall be
effective until further orders

Notes on Section 5:
Writ of Preliminary Injunction
-cannot be issued ex parte (sec 5, Rule 58 ROC)
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
-intended only as a restraint upon the
defendant until the propriety of granting an
injunction, temporary or perpetual, can be
determined, and it does no more than restrain
the proceedings until such determination
(Blacks Law Dictionary)

 Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)

-issued to preserve the status quo until the
hearing of the application for a writ of
preliminary injunction, because the
injunction cannot be issued ex parte
(Bacolod Water District v Labayen 446
SCRA 110)
>can be issued ex parte if matters are

 Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) requirements:

>facts shown by Affidavit or by Verified
application that Great or Irreparable Injury
would result to the applicant before the matter can
be heard on notice, the court in which the
application for Preliminary Injunction was made,
may issue a TRO EX PARTE for a period of 20
days from service on a party or person sought to
be enjoined
-within the said 20 day-period, the court must
order said party or person to show cause why the
injunction should not be granted

 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 the
applicant before the Writ of Preliminary
Injunction could be heard (National Assoc
of Electricity Consumers for Reforms Inc v
Energy Regulatory Commission GR
190795. 2011)

 Injury is considered irreparable if it is

of such constant and frequent recurrence
that no fair or reasonable redress can be
had therefor in a court of law (Ollendorff v
Abrahamson 38 Phil 585)/ or where there
is no standard by which their amount can
be measured with reasonable accuracy
(not susceptible of mathematical
computation) (SSC v Bayona et al L-13555.
1962)

-within same period, court shall determine

whether or not the preliminary injunction shall
be granted and then issue corresponding order.
(Australian Professional Realty Inc v
Municipality of Padre Garcia, Batangas Province
668 SCRA 253. 2012)
-the applicant for PI/TRO shall file a bond, unless
exempted by the court (sec 4 [b], Rule 58 ROC)
-the rule grants the court the discretion on the
matter of posting of the bond (the discretion
should not be exercised by the judge arbitrarily)

-unless it appears that the enjoined party

will not suffer any damage, the presiding
judge must require the applicant to post a
bond, otherwise, the courts could become
instruments of oppression and harassment
(Universal Motors Corp v Rojas Sr 459
SCRA 14)

 Sec 5 (3rd par): in the event that the

application for preliminary injunction is
denied or not resolved within the said
period (20 days), the TRO is deemed
automatically vacated. The effectivity of
the TRO 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.

 RIANO: extending or renewing the TRO is

prohibited only if the extension or renewal
is based on the very same ground upon
which the TRO was originally issued. If
another basis or ground should exist aside
from the original ground relied upon while
the TRO is in effect, an extension or
renewal of the order could be made
subject to the same period limitations
imposed by the rules.

 Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)

requirements:
>if:
-matter is of Extreme urgency and
-the applicant will suffer Grave injustice
and irreparable injury
>the executive judge of a multi-sala court
or the presiding judge of a single sala court
may issue ex parte a TRO effective for only
72 hours from issuance

-there is also a need to immediately

comply with the requirement on service of
summons and other documents as
provided in the preceding section (sec 5,
Rule 58 ROC)
-within this period, the judge, before whom
the case is pending, shall conduct a
summary hearing to determine whether or
not the TRO can be extended to 20 days

 The 72 hour effectivity can be extended up

to 20 days, including the original 72 hours
provided therein.
The 72 hour period shall be included in the
maximum 20 day period set by the Rules.
Violation of a TRO: guilty of Indirect
Contempt

 GR: Injunction is not available for acts

already done; unless if it is capable of
repetition yet evading review (United
Claimants Assoc of NEA v National
Electrification Admin GR 187107. 2012)

 Injunction cannot restrain the execution of a

judgment.
XPN:
1) when the facts and circumstances later
transpire that would render the execution
inequitable or unjust; or
2) when there is a change in the situation of the
parties that may warrant an injunctive relief
(Australian Professional Realty Inc v Municipality
of Padre Garcia Batangas Province GR 183367.
2012)

Section 6. Grounds for objection to or

for motion of dissolution of, injunction
or restraining order
Section 6.Grounds for objection to,or for
motion of dissolution of, injunction or
restraining order. The application for
injunction or restraining order may be
denied, upon a showing of its insufficiency.
The injunction or restraining order may also
be denied, or, if granted, may be dissolved,
on other grounds upon affidavits of the
party or person enjoined, which may be
opposed by the applicant also by affidavits

 It may further be denied, or if granted, may be

dissolved, if it appears after hearing that although the
applicant is entitled to the injunction or restraining
order, the issuance or continuance thereof, as the case
may be, would cause irreparable damage to the
party or person enjoined while the applicant can be
fully compensated for such damages as he may suffer,
and the former files a bond in an amount fixed by the
court conditioned that he will pay all damages which the
applicant may suffer by the denial or the dissolution of
the injunction or restraining order. If it appears that the
extent of the preliminary injunction or restraining order
granted is too great, it may be modified.

Notes on Section 6:
Grounds for objection to, or for Motion of
Dissolution of Injunction or Restraining Order
1) The application for Injunction or Restraining
order is Insufficient (sec 6, Rule 58, ROC)
-not verified
-not supported by any of the grounds for its
issuance under sec 3, Rule 58
-does not show facts entitling the applicant to the
relief demanded
-not supported by the required bond under sec 4,
Rule 58

2) Upon affidavits of the party or person

enjoined, which may be opposed by the
applicant also by affidavits (sec 6 Rule 58
ROC)

3) If it appears after hearing that although

applicant is entitled to the injunction or restraining
order, the issuance or continuance thereof, as the
case may be, would cause Irreparable damage to
the party or person enjoined while the applicant
can be fully compensated for such damages as he
may suffer.
-in this case, the person enjoined shall file a BOND
in an amount fixed by the court conditioned that
he will pay all damages which the applicant may
suffer by the denial or the dissolution of the
injunction or restraining order (sec 6 Rule 58 ROC)

 Modification of the Injunction

If it appears that the extent of the
preliminary injunction or restraining order
granted is too great, it may be modified
(sec 6, Rule 58, ROC)

 Grave abuse of discretion as a

ground for nullifying and Writ of
Preliminary Injunction
For grave abuse of discretion to exist
as a valid ground for the nullification
of an injunctive writ, there must be a
capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment, equivalent to lack or
excess of jurisdiction (Sps Castro v
Sps De la Cruz 639 SCRA 187, 191.

 Duty of the court that issued the writ.

The Trial Court (RTC, MTC), CA,
Sandiganbayan, or CTA that issued
the writ of preliminary injunction
against a lower court, board, officer,
or quasi-judicial agency shall decide
the main case or petition within 6
months from the issuance of the
writ (AM 07-7-12-SC, Effective Dec
27, 2007).

Section 7. Service of copies of

bonds; effect of disapproval of same
Section 7.Service of copies of
bonds;effect of disapproval of same.
The party filing a bond in
accordance with the provisions of
this Rule shall forthwith serve a copy
of such bond on the other party,
who may except to the sufficiency of
the bond, or of the surety or sureties
thereon.

 If the applicant's bond is found to be Insufficient

in amount, or if the Surety or sureties thereon
fail to justify, and a Bond sufficient in amount
with sufficient sureties approved after
justification is not filed forthwith the injunction
shall be dissolved. If the bond of the adverse
party is found to be insufficient in amount, or the
surety or sureties thereon fail to justify a bond
sufficient in amount with sufficient sureties
approved after justification is not filed forthwith,
the injunction shall be granted or restored, as the
case may be.

Notes on Sec 6 and 7:

Injunction under these sections may be
refused or dissolved if:
a) complaint is Insufficient
b) defendant is permitted to post a
Counter-bond, if it appears that he would
sustain great damage while the plaintiff can
be amply compensated; and/or
c) on Other grounds, as where the Bond
posted by the applicant turned out to be
insufficient or defective

 The filing of a counter-bond does not

necessarily warrant dissolution of
injunction as the court has to assess the
probable relative damages (Director of
Bureau of Telecommunications v Aligaen L31135. 1970)
A motion for the dissolution of the writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction must be
verified (Canlas v Aquino L-16815. 1961)

Section 8. Judgment to include

damages against party and sureties
Section 8.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.

Notes on Section 8:
The procedure for claiming damages on
the bond is the same as that in Preliminary
Attachment (sec 29, Rule 57)(Luzon Surety
Co Inc v Guerrero L-20705)
Recovery of damages for irregular
issuance of injunction, as where the main
case is dismissed and the injunction is
dissolved is limited to the amount of the
bond (Regalado)

 Malice or lack of good faith on the part of

the party who procured the injunction
which was later dissolved is not required
as a prerequisite for recovery by the
injured party on said bond (Aquino v
Socorro L-23868. 1970)
If there was malice there is a right to an
action in a civil case for malicious
prosecution (Molina v Somes 24 Phil 66)

 Damages against the bond must be filed

before the judgment becomes executory
(Advent Capital & Finance Corporation v
Rolland Young GR 183018. 2011)

Section 9. When final injunction

granted.
Section 9.When final injunction
granted. 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 of confirming the

Notes on Section 9:
Grant of Final Injunction:
-A final injunction shall be granted by the court with
the effect of permanently restraining a party or
person enjoined from committing or continuing the
acts subject of the injunction.
-The court may also confirm the preliminary
mandatory injunction already issued
These, the court will do, if after the trial of the action,
it appears that the applicant is entitled to have the
act or acts complained of permanently enjoined (sec
9, Rule 58 ROC)

 Remedy for judgment granting Final

Injunction: timely Appeal (Casilan v Ibanez
6 SCRA 590) [but the appeal wont stay the
judgment of Injunction unless ordered by
the Court usually upon a Bond or other
Security for the protection of the rights of
the adverse party]
A judgment in an Action for Injunction is
immediately executory under sec 4, Rule
39

 Remedy for judgment granting Preliminary

Injunction: Petition for Certiorari under
Rule 65 (sec 1 [b], Rule 41 ROC)
(why? The order granting the Preliminary
Injunction is not a final resolution or
decision disposing of the case. The
findings of fact and opinion of the court
when issuing the writ of preliminary
injunction are interlocutory in nature
[Recto v Escaler 634 SCRA 180, 191. 2010)

 In summary
Preliminary Injunction can be challenged
by Certiorari, while
Permanent Injunction is subject of an
Appeal
(Gasilan et al v Ibanez L-19968-69. 1962)

Finish