Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction | Preliminary Injunction (RULE 58) | PROVISIONAL REMEDIES

Disclaimer: The following discussion is provided for general informational and educational purposes based on Philippine law (particularly the Rules of Court) and is not intended as legal advice. For advice specific to your case or situation, you should consult a qualified attorney.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION UNDER RULE 58 OF THE PHILIPPINE RULES OF COURT

I. Overview

A preliminary injunction is an ancillary or provisional remedy aimed at preserving or protecting certain rights while the principal action is pending. It is an extraordinary relief, equitable in nature, and is not granted as a matter of right but at the sound discretion of the court. The main objective is to maintain or restore the status quo—the last actual, peaceable, uncontested state of things that preceded the controversy—until the merits of the case can be heard fully.

Under Philippine procedural rules, the relevant provisions on preliminary injunction can be found in Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Court, as amended. This rule outlines the requirements, procedure, and conditions for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.

II. Nature and Types of Injunction

  1. Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction

    • This restrains or prevents a party from performing a certain act (e.g., selling property, enforcing a contract, demolishing a building).
    • The court issues the writ to preserve the status quo by prohibiting the respondent from doing something that could violate the rights of the applicant.

  2. Preliminary Mandatory Injunction

    • This compels a party to perform a specific act (e.g., to surrender property, to reinstate an employee, to allow access).
    • Because it alters rather than preserves the status quo, courts exercise it sparingly and only upon a showing of compelling necessity.

III. Grounds for Issuance (Rule 58, Section 3)

According to Section 3, Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Court, a preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established via a verified application (and upon a bond filed by the applicant) that:

  1. 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;

  2. The commission, continuance, or non-performance of the act or acts complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or

  3. A party, court, or agency is doing, threatening, or 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.

In simpler terms, the essential grounds for the issuance of a preliminary injunction in the Philippines are:

  1. Existence of a Right in Esse – The applicant has a clear and unmistakable right or a right that is at least prima facie valid. A mere possibility or expectancy is not enough. The applicant must show an actual or vested right that needs judicial protection.
  2. Violation of that Right and Urgency of Protection – The act (or omission) being complained of would cause irreparable injury or grave prejudice to the applicant’s right if not enjoined. “Irreparable injury” means an injury not adequately compensable by damages, or one that cannot be measured by any certain pecuniary standard.
  3. No Other Adequate, Speedy, and Plain Remedy – The remedy at law (e.g., an award of damages at the end of the case) is insufficient to protect the applicant from the harm that is impending or continuing.
  4. Compliance with the Bond Requirement – The applicant must post a bond to answer for any damages that the adverse party may suffer if it is later found that the injunction was wrongfully issued.

IV. Key Requisites in Detail

  1. Clear Legal Right or Right in Esse

    • The first and foremost requirement is the demonstration that the applicant has an existing right that requires protection. Philippine jurisprudence frequently stresses that injunction is only granted to protect a right that is unmistakably clear.

  2. Violation of or Threat to Violate Such Right

    • It must be shown that the defendant or respondent’s conduct (or threatened conduct) has the potential to violate or has already violated that right. The threat must be real and imminent.

  3. Irreparable Injury or Grave Injustice

    • Courts look for irreparable harm, meaning an injury that cannot be accurately compensated by money or is of such a nature that fair compensation cannot be ascertained. If money damages can make the applicant whole, an injunction is usually improper because there is an adequate legal remedy.

  4. Urgent Necessity to Prevent Serious Damage

    • There must be urgency. Delays in halting the injurious act could render any subsequent judgment ineffectual if the subject matter is destroyed, altered, or otherwise significantly harmed.

  5. No Plain, Speedy, and Adequate Remedy in the Ordinary Course of Law

    • If the applicant can be adequately protected or compensated by ordinary legal remedies (e.g., a civil action for damages), the court is less inclined to issue an injunction.

  6. Posting of an Injunction Bond

    • As a condition precedent to the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction, the applicant is required to file a bond, fixed by the court, to cover damages the adverse party may incur should it later be determined that the injunction was improvidently issued.

V. Procedure for Applying for Preliminary Injunction

  1. Verified Application or Petition

    • The application for a preliminary injunction must be made in writing, verified, and filed with the court in the same action or proceeding.
    • It should specifically state the facts showing the existence of a right, the violation or threat to such right, and the necessity for injunctive relief.

  2. Notice and Hearing

    • As a rule, the adverse party must be given notice and an opportunity to oppose the application at a summary hearing, except in very urgent cases where a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) might be issued ex parte (subject to stringent limitations and time periods).

  3. Bond Requirement

    • Before granting the writ, the court determines the bond’s amount which must be filed by the applicant. The purpose of the bond is to answer for damages if it turns out that the injunction was improperly issued.

  4. Issuance of the Writ

    • If the court is satisfied that the grounds for a preliminary injunction have been established, it will issue an order stating the reasons for its issuance, the bond requirement, and any conditions the court deems just and equitable.

VI. Distinguishing Preliminary Injunction from a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)

  • Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)

    • A TRO is a more immediate but short-lived remedy, often issued ex parte in cases of extreme urgency.
    • It is designed to preserve the status quo for a limited period (e.g., up to 20 days in the RTC, 60 days in the Court of Appeals, 120 days in the Supreme Court) pending the hearing on the preliminary injunction application.

  • Preliminary Injunction

    • This is effective until the resolution of the main case (unless sooner dissolved by the court).
    • It is granted only after notice to the adverse party and a hearing, except in rare instances where the need is so urgent that a TRO must be issued first.
    • The injunction, once granted, can last until the court makes a final adjudication on the merits (or until dissolved or otherwise modified by the court).

VII. Preliminary Mandatory Injunction: Stricter Standards

While the rules technically cover both prohibitory and mandatory injunctions under “preliminary injunction,” courts apply more stringent standards for preliminary mandatory injunction, because:

  1. It compels the performance of an act that may disturb the status quo or drastically alter the parties’ positions.
  2. It is generally disfavored except when:
    • The applicant’s right is clearly and unmistakably established;
    • The urgency of the situation demands immediate action to prevent grave injustice or serious injury; and
    • The damage to the applicant is so material and substantial that it cannot be repaired or indemnified by damages.

Courts are more cautious since a mandatory injunction grants part of the relief sought even before the case is tried on the merits, and mistakes can cause irreparable harm to the adverse party.

VIII. Dissolution of Preliminary Injunction

A preliminary injunction (or TRO) may be dissolved on motion by the adverse party if it is shown that:

  1. The injunction was improperly or irregularly issued;
  2. The bond is insufficient or not posted;
  3. There is no ground for the issuance of the writ to begin with; or
  4. Change of circumstances renders the injunction moot or unnecessary.

The party opposing the injunction or TRO can file a motion to dissolve or modify it at any time after it is granted, citing the reasons it should be lifted.

IX. Effects on the Main Action

  • Ancillary or Incidental Nature

    • A preliminary injunction is merely ancillary to the principal action; it is not a separate or independent remedy.
    • Its main purpose is to preserve the status quo and prevent the mooting of the core issues in the principal case.

  • No Judgment on the Merits

    • The court, in granting or denying the application for injunction, does not finally adjudicate the parties’ rights and liabilities.
    • The findings of fact or law made in connection with an application for provisional relief are generally not controlling in the main case.

X. Relevant Jurisprudential Guidelines

Philippine Supreme Court decisions have consistently enumerated the following key points in granting or denying a writ of preliminary injunction:

  1. Strong Probability of Success on the Merits

    • While not expressly worded as such in the Rules, courts often require a reasonable certainty or likelihood that the plaintiff will succeed in the main case—especially where mandatory injunction is sought.

  2. Status Quo Ante

    • The status quo to be preserved is the last actual, peaceable, uncontested situation before the controversy.
    • An injunction should not create a new set of circumstances but should keep matters in the condition they were before the dispute.

  3. Discretionary Nature

    • The lower court’s discretion is not absolute. It must be exercised based on law and reason.
    • Appellate courts can reverse or modify an order granting or denying an injunction if there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion.

  4. Balancing of Equities

    • Courts also consider the relative conveniences, hardships, and potential injuries to both parties.
    • A preliminary injunction will not be granted if it will work great injustice or harm to the defendant that outweighs the benefit to the plaintiff.

XI. Practical Pointers and Ethical Considerations

  1. Drafting the Application and Affidavits

    • Lawyers must carefully draft the verified application, affidavits, and supporting evidence.
    • Thoroughly allege facts establishing the existence of a clear right, imminent or continuing violation, irreparable injury, and inadequacy of legal remedies.

  2. Avoiding Forum-Shopping

    • An applicant or counsel must not seek injunctive relief in different courts for the same cause of action. That is forum-shopping, which can result in dismissals and even disciplinary measures.

  3. Candor with the Court

    • Lawyers are ethically bound to disclose all material facts, favorable or unfavorable, in seeking an equitable remedy.
    • Courts frown upon parties who withhold critical facts or attempt to mislead for the sake of obtaining an injunction or TRO.

  4. Observing Bond and Undertakings

    • Counsel must ensure the bond is promptly posted and is in an amount that the court deems sufficient.
    • The applicant must be prepared to pay any damages that the adverse party may suffer if the injunction proves to have been wrongful.

  5. Prohibition on Issuance of Injunction Against Certain Entities

    • Under special laws, courts are restricted from issuing injunctions in specific cases (e.g., infrastructure projects of government).
    • Check for statutory exemptions (e.g., Presidential Decrees, special statutes) that may bar or limit injunctive relief.

XII. Conclusion

A preliminary injunction is a powerful provisional remedy granted only upon stringent conditions set out in Rule 58 of the Rules of Court. It requires:

  • A clear and unmistakable right;
  • A pressing necessity to avoid irreparable injury;
  • No other adequate legal remedy; and
  • A duly posted bond.

Courts exercise caution in awarding injunctions, mindful that an improvidently issued writ can unduly prejudice defendants and the public interest. Proper, diligent preparation of the pleadings and evidence—combined with strict adherence to procedural and ethical rules—is crucial to successfully securing or opposing preliminary injunctive relief.

Note: For any particular matter or case, it is essential to seek the advice of a licensed Philippine attorney who can assess the specific facts, applicable laws, and jurisprudence. The above is a general overview and not an exhaustive treatment of all issues or jurisprudential nuances that may arise in the application for a writ of preliminary injunction.

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