Definitions and differences: preliminary injunction, temporary restraining order, and status quo ante order | Preliminary Injunction (RULE 58) | PROVISIONAL REMEDIES

Below is a comprehensive discussion of the law and rules on preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders (TRO) in the Philippines, primarily governed by Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (as amended). The discussion includes the nature of preliminary injunctions, their types, the requisites for issuance, procedure and bond requirements, distinctions and rules on TROs, and relevant notes from jurisprudence.

I. NATURE AND PURPOSE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

  1. Definition

    • 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 (prohibitory) or to perform a particular act (mandatory).
    • The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo ante (the last actual, peaceable, uncontested status that preceded the controversy) until the merits of the case can be heard. It is designed to prevent future injury and to preserve the court’s ability to render a meaningful judgment on the merits.

  2. Types of Preliminary Injunction
    a. Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction

    • Prohibits a party from performing a particular act during the pendency of the action.
      b. Preliminary Mandatory Injunction
    • Requires a party to perform a particular act during the pendency of the action, thereby restoring the parties to their respective rights as of the filing of the case or immediately before the alleged violation. Because this type of injunction compels performance (rather than preventing an act), courts apply it more cautiously.

II. REQUISITES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Under Section 3 of Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the applicant must prove the following essential requisites before the court can issue a writ of preliminary injunction:

  1. Clear and unmistakable right (Existence of a right to be protected)

    • The applicant must possess a right in esse or a clear and present right. Mere claims or expectancy of right are insufficient.
    • This right must be material and substantial—not merely contingent or anticipatory.

  2. Violation or invasion of that right

    • The act against which an injunction is directed must be violative of the applicant’s rights.
    • The threatened violation or act sought to be prevented must be imminent and should result in irreparable injury if not halted.

  3. Irreparable injury

    • The applicant must show that they stand to suffer grave and irreparable injury if the injunctive relief is not granted. “Irreparable injury” does not necessarily mean an injury that is beyond pecuniary compensation, but one that cannot be fully remedied by final judgment and execution, or that would result in a damage that is not susceptible of exact pecuniary measurement.

  4. Urgent and paramount necessity to avoid serious damage

    • There must be no other ordinary, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to prevent the infliction of the irreparable injury.
    • The court should be convinced that injunction is the most efficient and viable remedy to protect the applicant’s right pending the main case.

  5. Posting of an Injunction Bond

    • The rules require that the applicant post a bond executed in favor of the adverse party, to answer for all damages that the latter may sustain should the court finally decide that the applicant was not entitled to an injunctive relief.

III. PROCEDURE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

  1. Filing of the Application

    • The application for a preliminary injunction must be included in the complaint or as a separate motion. It must be verified and must clearly state the facts showing entitlement to the injunctive relief.
    • The applicant’s affidavit(s) or evidence must be attached, demonstrating the grounds and factual circumstances justifying the issuance of the writ.

  2. Hearing on the Application

    • The court must conduct a summary hearing to determine the propriety of granting or denying the injunction.
    • The adverse party is entitled to notice of the hearing and an opportunity to be heard.
    • In the hearing, the court examines whether the applicant has sufficiently established the requisites for injunctive relief.

  3. Issuance or Denial

    • If the court is satisfied that the applicant has sufficiently proved the requisites, it will issue the writ of preliminary injunction. Otherwise, it will deny the application.
    • The order granting the writ must state the reasons for its issuance and must require the applicant to post a bond.

  4. Posting of Bond

    • Before the writ of preliminary injunction is granted, the applicant must file a bond in an amount the court deems sufficient to cover damages that the adverse party may suffer due to the injunction, should the court finally decide that the injunction was improper or unjustified.

  5. Contents of the Writ

    • The writ must set forth the date and hour of issuance, the act(s) sought to be enjoined, the court’s reasons for granting the injunction, and the amount of the bond.

  6. Effectivity Until Further Orders

    • Once issued, the writ of preliminary injunction ordinarily remains in effect until dissolved or until final judgment, unless earlier lifted or modified by the court.

IV. DISSOLUTION OR MODIFICATION OF INJUNCTION

  1. Motion of the Adverse Party

    • The adverse party, at any time, may move for the dissolution or modification of the preliminary injunction.
    • Grounds include: (a) the insufficiency of the application, (b) lack of factual basis, (c) changed circumstances that render the writ moot or unnecessary, or (d) the posting of a counter-bond.

  2. Counter-bond

    • If the adverse party files a bond equivalent or superior in amount to that posted by the applicant, conditioned to pay all damages which the applicant may suffer by the dissolution of the injunction, the court may dissolve the injunction.

  3. Hearing on the Motion to Dissolve

    • A summary hearing is likewise conducted on the motion to dissolve or modify.
    • The party who obtained the injunction must show that the reasons for which the injunction was issued still exist.

V. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (TRO)

A. Nature of a TRO

  1. Definition

    • A Temporary Restraining Order is a provisional order directing the parties, for a limited and specific period, to refrain from doing a particular act.
    • It is issued to prevent immediate and irreparable harm while the court is determining the propriety of issuing a writ of preliminary injunction.

  2. Distinction from a Preliminary Injunction

    • Duration: A TRO has a limited lifespan (e.g., 20 days if issued by a RTC; 60 days if issued by the Court of Appeals; indefinite upon extension is not allowed), whereas a preliminary injunction can last until final judgment unless earlier dissolved.
    • Purpose: A TRO is a more urgent remedy designed to preserve the status quo for a very short term until a hearing for preliminary injunction can be conducted.

B. Rules on Duration of TRO

  1. TRO Issued by Regional Trial Courts (RTC)

    • Initial TRO: Effective for only 20 days from service on the party sought to be enjoined.
    • If the application for preliminary injunction is denied or not resolved within that 20-day period, the TRO automatically expires.
    • If the court fails to resolve the application for preliminary injunction within the 20-day period, the TRO is deemed automatically lifted.

  2. TRO Issued by the Court of Appeals or Sandiganbayan

    • Effective for 60 days from service on the party sought to be enjoined.
    • The appellate court must decide on the application for preliminary injunction before the expiry of the 60-day period; otherwise, the TRO is deemed automatically lifted.

  3. TRO Issued by the Supreme Court

    • The Supreme Court has the constitutional prerogative to issue TROs without the time limitation that binds lower courts. The SC may extend or continue the effectivity of a TRO as it deems proper.

  4. 72-Hour TRO (Ex Parte TRO)

    • In exceptional cases where irreparable injury may occur before the hearing on the application for a TRO, the executive judge or presiding judge of an RTC may issue an ex parte TRO effective only for 72 hours from issuance.
    • Within the same period, the judge must conduct a summary hearing to determine if the TRO should be extended to a total of 20 days (counting from the expiration of the 72-hour period).

C. Procedure for Issuance of TRO

  1. Application

    • The application for a TRO must be included in the complaint or through a separate motion duly verified and accompanied by affidavits showing the grounds.

  2. Grounds for TRO

    • Same as those for a writ of preliminary injunction but highlight the urgency and immediate nature of the threatened injury or violation.
    • The court must be satisfied there is a need to maintain the status quo pending the hearing on the application for a writ of preliminary injunction.

  3. Hearing and Extension

    • Before a 20-day TRO is issued by the RTC, the court must, within the 72-hour period if an ex parte TRO was issued, conduct a summary hearing to determine whether the TRO should be extended until the expiration of 20 days.
    • Once the TRO lapses without the court issuing a preliminary injunction, it cannot be revived.

VI. INJUNCTION AND TRO BOND

  1. Purpose

    • The bond is meant to answer for damages that the adverse party may suffer if it is finally determined that the injunction or TRO was improperly issued.

  2. Amount and Sufficiency

    • The amount is fixed by the court. A hearing may be conducted to determine the sufficient amount, based on possible damages.
    • The adverse party can assail the sufficiency of the bond if it believes the amount is inadequate.

  3. Liability on the Bond

    • If the court later decides the injunction or TRO was wrongful or improvidently issued, the adverse party may move for the assessment of damages against the bond.
    • Liability under the bond is enforced only after proper hearing where the applicant is given the opportunity to be heard on the question of damages.

VII. LEGAL AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

  1. Diligence in Applying for Injunction

    • Lawyers must ensure that the application for injunction is meritorious and not for dilatory or vexatious purposes. Courts frown upon frivolous or malicious applications for injunctions.

  2. Candor Towards the Court

    • All material facts must be disclosed when applying for a TRO or preliminary injunction. Suppression of material facts is a serious breach of legal ethics and may be a ground for disciplinary action.

  3. Avoiding Forum Shopping

    • The applicant must file a single application for the same injunctive relief in the proper forum. Multiple applications in different courts can result in forum shopping sanctions.

  4. Good Faith and Just Cause

    • Courts may penalize litigants and/or lawyers who seek injunctions in bad faith or as a harassment tool.

VIII. RELEVANT JURISPRUDENCE AND KEY POINTS

  1. Grave Abuse of Discretion

    • Appellate courts will generally not interfere with the trial court’s discretion in granting or denying an injunction unless there is grave abuse of discretion.
    • The issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is an interlocutory matter left largely to the sound discretion of the court.

  2. Status Quo Ante

    • The reference point in maintaining the status quo is the last actual, peaceable and uncontested situation before the controversy erupted. A TRO or preliminary injunction must not determine the issues with finality.

  3. Mandatory Injunctions are Strictly Construed

    • Courts exercise more caution in issuing preliminary mandatory injunctions because such injunctions can significantly alter the state of affairs prior to final judgment.

  4. Evidence Required

    • The applicant must show, by substantial evidence, that there is an urgent necessity for the injunctive relief. Mere allegations of apprehension or possibility are not enough.

  5. Balancing of Equities

    • Courts weigh the relative equities between parties. If great damage to the adverse party would result from issuance of an injunction, and the injury to the applicant is reparable by damages, the court may be inclined to deny the injunction.

  6. Lapse of TRO

    • When a TRO lapses, the parties are reverted to the same legal situation before its issuance. One cannot continue or revive a lapsed TRO unless the court issues a new one based on changed circumstances.

IX. SUMMARY OF ESSENTIAL POINTS

  1. Preliminary Injunction

    • Preserves status quo; remains in effect until lifted or final judgment.
    • Requires: (a) a clear legal right, (b) a violation/ threat, (c) irreparable harm, (d) urgent necessity, (e) posting of bond.
    • May be prohibitory or mandatory.

  2. Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)

    • More urgent and limited in duration; preserves status quo until the hearing on a preliminary injunction.
    • Limited to 20 days for RTC, 60 days for CA or Sandiganbayan, indefinite extension not permitted at those levels. The Supreme Court is not bound by the 20/60-day rule.
    • A 72-hour ex parte TRO may be issued in extremely urgent cases, followed by a summary hearing to decide on extending it up to 20 days.

  3. Bond Requirement

    • Mandatory. Designed to compensate any party injured if the injunction or TRO is later determined to have been improperly issued.

  4. Dissolution or Modification

    • May be sought by the adverse party at any time on grounds of insufficiency or by posting a counter-bond.
    • The court conducts a summary hearing on the motion to dissolve.

  5. Ethical and Jurisdictional Safeguards

    • Counsel must ensure good faith and honesty in the application process.
    • Forum shopping and misrepresentations can lead to sanctions.

Final Note

A preliminary injunction and a TRO are powerful provisional remedies that can dramatically impact the rights and obligations of parties even before a full trial on the merits. Hence, our rules and jurisprudence require strict compliance with procedural and substantive requisites. Philippine courts exercise caution in granting these remedies, mindful that they should only be issued to prevent grave and irreparable harm, maintain the status quo ante, and secure the effectiveness of the final judgment—never to prejudge the merits or to vex or oppress the opposing party.

Lawyers who seek or oppose such remedies must thoroughly prepare by presenting compelling evidence, complying with all procedural requirements, and demonstrating candid good faith before the courts.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login