Hrs.

of Yu v Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 182371. September 4, 2013

Facts:

An order to vacate and a Special Order of Demolition was issued and implemented
against the heirs of Y. Since the TRO which was initially granted was revoked, they
filed a motion for reconsideration with very urgent prayer for immediate issuance of
WPI and WPMI. The CA granted the prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction and
the writ was issued on the same day. The heirs of Sps. X, the registered and absolute
owners of the contested land, filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and later an
Urgent Motion for Dissolution of the Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction before
the CA, and before the SC, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to set aside the Order
and Writ of Preliminary Injunction.

Question: Was the issuance of the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction proper?

Answer:

No.

Section 4(b), Rule 58 of the Rules of Court provides that, “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, or 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.”

In this case, the Order and Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction were both hastily
issued and released simultaneously on the same day without first waiting for the heirs
of Y to post the required bond. The posting of a bond is a condition sine qua non for the
issuance of the corresponding writ. The issuance of the writ is also not justified since the
alleged right to be protected of the heirs of Y is disputed.
United Coconut Planters Bank v Lumbo
G.R. No. 162757. December 11, 2013

Facts:

P emerged as the highest bidder in a foreclosure sale and it filed an ex parte petition for
the issuance of a writ of possession to recover possession of the property which was
later on granted. R filed in the RTC a petition to cancel the writ of possession and to set
aside the foreclosure sale and included a writ of preliminary injunction and temporary
restraining order to prevent the implementation of the writ of possession.
The RTC denied the motion of R but the CA granted the injunctive writ to enjoin the
implementation of the writ of possession. P appealed the decision of the CA by petition
for review on certiorari.

Question: Was the decision of CA correct?

Answer:

No.

Section 3(c), Rule 58 of the Rules of Court provides 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 probable in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the
subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.” In
the case of injunction, the right sought to be protected should at least be shown to exist
prima facie.

In this case, the CA committed a serious error in granting the injunctive writ because it
ignored the essential requirements for the grant of the injunctive writ, and disregarded
the fact that R held no right in esse. The implementation of a writ of possession issued
at the instance of the purchaser at the foreclosure sale of the mortgaged property in
whose name the title has been meanwhile consolidated cannot be prevented by the
injunctive writ.
Overseas Workers Welfare Administration v Chavez
G.R. No. 169802. June 8, 2007

Facts:

P, a government agency, passed a resolution for its new organizational structure which
was later on approved. R filed with the RTC a Complaint for Annulment of the
Organizational Structure of P with Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction against P and its Board of Trustees. The RTC granted the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction restraining P from implementing its new organizational
structure upon the filing of a bond. The CA affirmed the RTC’s order. P assailed the
CA’s decision before the SC through a petition for review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court.

Question: Was the grant of the assailed writ of preliminary injunction proper?

Answer:

No.

Based on jurisprudence, the sole objective of a preliminary injunction, being merely a

provisional remedy subject to the outcome of the main case, is to preserve the status
quo until the trial court hears fully the merits of the case. The court must not make use
of its injunctive power to alter such status.

In the case at bar, the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction when it failed to maintain the status quo in its issuance of the writ of
preliminary injunction. It effectively restored the situation prior to the status quo which
disposed the issue of the main case without trial on the merits. The SC was also not
convinced that R was able to show a clear and unmistakable legal right to warrant their
entitlement to the writ.