PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Status Quo The status quo is the last actual peaceful uncontested situation which precedes a controversy, and its preservation is the office of an injunctive writ. (Verzosa vs. CA, G.R. Nos. 119511-13. November 24, 1998) Usually refers to the status of the parties immediately before the filing of the complaint. What if the complaint was amended?

Status Quo The sole object of a preliminary injunction, whether prohibitory or mandatory, is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard. In general, courts should avoid issuing a writ of preliminary injunction which in effect disposes of the main case without trial. (Manila International Airport Authority vs. Powergen, Inc., G.R. No. 164299, February 12, 2008)

Status Quo (Fernanil vs. Arcilla, G.R. No. L-44353 February 28, 1979) Prohibitory Injunction Mandatory Injunction The specific act sought to be enjoined has not yet been performed, and is one alleged to be illegal, by the pleader. It is enjoined because it would cause irreparable injury if allowed to be committed to the prejudice of the applicant. The situation before the issuance of the prohibitory injunction is thus preserved in status quo. The applicant is placed in the same situation he was before the commission of the illegal act complained of, as if said act has never been committed. The status quo to be restored in the case of a mandatory injunction is the situation in which the pleader is before the act already committed and complained of.

Object: Preservation Of Rights of Litigants An act already committed cannot be enjoined by preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy that a party may resort to in order to preserve and protect certain rights and interests during the pendency of an action. Its sole objective is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard fully. Status quo is defined as 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. Indubitably, the trial court must not make use of its injunctive relief to alter such status. (Pineda vs. CA, G.R. No. 181643, November 17, 2010)

No Injunction – Fait Accompli In Caneland Sugar Corporation v. Alon, it was settled that injunctive reliefs are preservative remedies for the protection of substantive rights and interests. Injunction is not a cause of action in itself, but merely a provisional remedy, an adjunct to a main suit. When the act sought to be enjoined has become fait accompli, the prayer for provisional remedy should be denied. In Go v. Looyuko, the Court ruled that when the events sought to be prevented by injunction or prohibition have already happened, nothing more could be enjoined or prohibited. Indeed, it is a universal principle of law that an injunction will not issue to restrain the performance of an act already done. This is so for the simple reason that nothing more can be done in reference thereto. A writ of injunction becomes moot and academic after the act sought to be enjoined has already been consummated. (Bernardez vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190382, March 9, 2010)

Strong Arm of Equity He who seeks equity must do equity; and (2) He who comes into equity must come with clean hands.

Strong Arm of Equity Injunction is accepted as the strong arm of equity or a transcendent remedy to be used cautiously as it affects the respective rights of the parties, and only upon full conviction on the part of the court of its extreme necessity. An extraordinary remedy, injunction is designed to preserve or maintain the status quo of things and is generally availed of to prevent actual or threatened acts until the merits of the case can be heard. It may be resorted to only by a litigant for the preservation or protection of his rights or interests and for no other purpose during the pendency of the principal action. (Levi Strauss and Co. vs. Clinton Apparel, G.R. No. 138900, September 20, 2005)

Non-Jurisdiction Sec. 44 (h) of the Judiciary Act of 1948 CFC and their judges, or any of them shall have the power to issue writs of injunction, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, quo warranto, and habeas corpus in their respective provinces and districts, in the manner provided in the Rules of Court. Sec. 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court The petition may be filed x x x if it relates to the acts or omissions of an inferior court, or of a corporation, board, officer or person, in a Court of First Instance having jurisdiction thereof. Sec. 29, BP 129 Original jurisdiction in other cases – Regional trial Courts shall exercise original jurisdiction (1) in the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction which may be enforced in any part of their respective regions.

Non-Jurisdiction Jurisdiction over What? The “jurisdiction” referred to in Sec. 4 Rule 65 refers to the jurisdiction over the “corporation, board, officer or person whose acts are being questioned. The term “jurisdiction” do not refer to jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case which can only be fixed by congress.

Non-Jurisdiction General Rule Injunctions issued by the Regional Trial Courts are limited to acts committed or to be committed within its territorial jurisdiction. This means the court has no power to control, by means of injunction, the acts of persons who are beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court.

Non-Jurisdiction The court has jurisdiction to enjoin acts to be performed within their territorial jurisdiction even if the respondents holds offices outside of the court’s territorial jurisdiction. The acts relative to the establishment of a local telephone system by petitioners were being done within the territorial boundaries of the province or district of respondent court, and so said court had jurisdiction to restrain them by injunction. It does not matter that some of the respondents in the trial court, against whom the injunctive order was issued, had their official residences outside the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. (Dir. of Telecommunications vs. Aligaen, 33 SCRA 368)

Non-Jurisdiction Where the principal office of the corporation is within the court’s jurisdiction, the writ may issue even if the act sought to be restrained is to be carried outside its jurisdiction. (Dagupan Electric Co. vs. Paňo, 95 SCRA 693)

TRO Nature and Purpose 'A temporary restraining order is generally granted without notice to the opposite party, and is intended only as a restraint on him until the propriety of granting a temporary injunction can be determined, and it goes no further than to preserve the status quo until that determination (The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines, Vol. IV-A by Vicente J. Francisco, 1971, pp. 184-185). Its purpose is merely to suspend proceedings until there may be an opportunity to inquire whether any injunction should be granted, and it is not intended to operate as an injunction pendente lite, and should not in effect determine the issues involved before the parties can have their day in court, or give an advantage to either party by proceeding in the acquisition or alteration of the property the right to which is disputed while the hands of the other party are tied. (Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117661. July 15, 1996)

TRO General Rule Exception only issued after SUMMARY HEARING is conducted within 24 hours after the records are submitted to the branch selected by raffle. Exception Executive Judge may issue TRO good for 72 hours if there is of extreme urgency, such that unless a TRO is issued, grave injustice and irreparable injury will arise. Thereafter, before the expiry of the seventy-two (72) hours, the Presiding Judge to whom the case is assigned shall conduct a summary hearing to determine whether the TRO can be extended for another period until a hearing [o]n the pending application for preliminary injunction can be conducted. In no case shall the total period x x x exceed twenty (20) days, including the original seventy-two (72) hours, for the TRO issued by the Executive Judge. (Vda. De Sayson vs. Judge Zerna, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1506, August 9, 2001)

GROUNDS FOR ISSUANCE The applicant is entitled to the relief demanded. The commission, continuance or the non-performance of the acts complained of would work injustice to the applicant. That the party against whom the injunction is sought is doing, threatening some act probably in violation of the rights of the applicant tending to render the judgment ineffectual.

Right in Esse Capitol Medical Center vs. CA, 178 SCRA 493 FACTS HELD the students and teachers banded together to go on strike against the school administration the school decided to close effective at the end of the semester the students sued the school to compel it to re-open and the lower court issued a preliminary mandatory injunction HELD Under the law, the contract between a student and a school is for a semester only. The law does not require a school to see a student through to the completion of his course. The students have no clear right to “re-enroll” for the next semester.

Violation of Right Mere allegation is insufficient the complaint for injunctive relief must be strictly construed against the pleader.

Preliminary Injunction Proper Not proper to restrain collection of taxes. Injunction will not lie to enjoin the prosecution of criminal proceedings Exception: To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused. When there is a prejudicial question. When the prosecution is founded upon an invalid law.