Preliminary Mandatory Injunction

ON PRELIMINARY MANDATORY INJUNCTION

I To be entitled to an injunctive writ, petitioner must show, inter alia, the existence of a clear and unmistakable right and an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. 1 The SC held that in the absence of proof of a legal right and the injury sustained by the plaintiff, an order of the trial court granting the issuance of an injunctive writ will be set aside, for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. 

II !"#$%S%T"S %n order that injunction may issue, two re&uisites must concur' (1) the existence of a right to be protected* and () the facts against which the injunction is to be directed are violative of said right.

+

%njunction, like other e&uitable remedies, should be issued only at the instance of a suitor who has sufficient interest in or title to the right or the property sought to be protected. %t is proper only when the plaintiff appears appears to be entitled to the relief demanded demanded in the complaint. complaint. %n particular, the existence of the right and the violation thereof must appear in the allegations allegations of the complaint and must constitute at least a prima facie showing of a right to the final relief. Thus, there are two re&uisites conditions for the issuance of a preliminary injunction, namely, (1) the right to be protected exists prima facie* and () the acts sought to be enjoined are violative of that right. %t must be proven that the violation sought to be prevented would cause an irreparable injustice. 

III -$!-S"S %njunction is a preservative remedy for the protection of one/s substantive right or interest. %t is granted only when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious conse&uences which cannot be remed remedied ied under under any any stand standard ard compe compens nsati ation. on. %ts issu issuanc ance e rests rests upon upon the the exist existen ence ce of an emergency or a special reason before the main case can be regularly heard. %t is for the party re&uesting an injunction to demonstrate clearly the presence of one or more of the grounds for its issuance. 0

1

 ilson ng Ching 2%an Chuan vs. Court of 3ppeals and 4oren5o Tan, 6! 7o. 1+8+98, 3ugust 10, 881  :evelopers 6roup of Companies, %nc. vs. Court of 3ppeals, 1; SC!3 anila Banking Corporation v. Court of 3ppeals, 1E< SC!3 1+E (1;;E)  lalia v. Fi5on, 1;9 SC!3 990 (1;;1) 22  Sto. Tomas $niversity Fospital v. Surla, ; SC!3 +E (1;;E) 23  4a Nista 3sso., %nc. v. Court of 3ppeals, anila "lectric !ailroad G 4ight Co. vs. :el !osario,  -hil. ++ (1;1)* "usebio vs. 3guas, < -hil. 09< (1;0) 40  Feirs of Aoa&uin 3suncion vs. 6ervacio, Ar., +8 SC!3 + (1;;;)* S G 3 6aisano %ncorporated vs. Fidalgo. 1; SC!3  (1;;8)* !odulfa vs. 3lfonso, otion for -reliminary %njunction within +8 days from its filing. There can be no mistaking the clear command of Section 10 of !ule ":%:"3, 1th >unicipal Circuit Trial Court, Cabatuan and >aasin, %loilo, respondent., 3.>. 7o. >TA@8@10;, 88+ ct 1, +rd :ivision 45  Tay Chun Suy v. C3, 6.!. 7o. ;188@80, 8 3ugust 1;;, 1 SC!3 arch 1;E