PART TWO - Provisional Remedies

Common Rules 1. Provisional remedies are: (1) Those to which parties litigant may resort for the preservation or protection of their rights or interest, and for no other purpose during the pendency of the action. (2) They are applied to a pending litigation, for the purpose of securing the judgment or preserving the status quo, and in some cases after judgment, for the purpose of preserving or disposing of the su ject matter. 2!" 2. The provisional remedies are (1) #ttachment ($ule %&)' (2) Preliminary (njunction ($ule %!)' ()) $eceivers ($ule %*)' (") $eplevin (or delivery of private property) ( $ule +,)' and (%) #limony Pendente Lite ($ule +1). #ffidavits are re-uired to support the issuance of any of these remedies and, with the e.ception of alimony pendente lite, a ond to answer for damages y reason of the improvident issuance of the writ. $ecovery of damages from the ond is governed y $ule %&, /ection 2,.2!%

A. Attachment 1. 0efinition # writ of preliminary attachment is a provisional remedy issued upon order of the court where an action is pending to e levied upon the property or properties of the defendant therein, the same to e held thereafter y the sheriff as security for the satisfaction of whatever judgment might e secured in said action y the attaching creditor against the defendant.2!+
284 285

Calo v. Roldan, 76 Phil. 445 [1946]. Rules of Court, Rule 58, Se . 8! Rule 59, Se . 9! Rule 6", Se . 1". 286 #dla$an v. %o&ol, '.R. (o. 6)225, #*ril ), 199", 184 SCR# )1! Cuartero v. Court of #**eals, '.R. (o. 1"2448, #u+ust 5, 1992 212 SCR# 26" Cited in Che&*hil ,-*ort and .&*ort Cor*oration /C,.C0 v. Court of #**eals, '.R. (o. 1124)81)9, 2e e&3er 12, 1995, 251 SCR# 257.

2. 1oncept and Purpose. #ttachment is a juridical institution which has for its purpose to secure the outcome of the trial, that is, the satisfaction of the pecuniary o ligation really contracted y a person or elieved to have een contracted y him, either y virtue of a civil o ligation emanating from contract or from law, or y virtue of some crime or misdemeanor that he might have committed, and the writ issued, granted it, is e.ecuted y attaching and safely 2eeping all the mova le property of the defendant, or so much thereof as may e sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff3s demands.2!& The chief purpose of the remedy of attachment is to secure a contingent lien on defendants property until plaintiff can, by appropriate proceedings, obtain a judgment and have such property applied to its satisfaction, or to ma2e some provision for unsecured de ts in cases where the means of satisfaction thereof are lia le to e removed eyond the jurisdiction, or improperly disposed of or concealed, or otherwise placed eyond the reach of creditors. 2!! ). 4ature and /cope: #ttachment Purely /tatutory #ttachment is not a distinct proceeding in the nature of an action in rem ut it is a proceeding to an action of law, designed to secure the payment of any judgment the plaintiff may o tain. #ttachment, as a provisional remedy, is purely a statutory one. (t does not e.ist unless e.pressly granted y the statute. (t is therefore not availa le e.cept in those cases where the statute e.pressly permits.2!* 5or this purpose, the party see2ing an attachment must show that a sufficient cause of action e.ists and that the amount due him as much as the sum for which the order of attachment is sought.2*, ". /trict 1ompliance with the $ule The rule on the issue of a writ of attachment must e construed strictly in favor of the defendant. (f all the re-uisites for the issuance of the writ are not present, the court, which issues it acts in e.cess of jurisdiction.2*1 (t should e issued only on concrete and specific grounds.2*2 %. #ttachment to #c-uire 6urisdiction 7ver the Res #ttachment is intended to confer jurisdiction y the court over the res. 8hen real property of a non9resident defendant located in Philippines is attached to answer for the claim of the plaintiff, the court ac-uires jurisdiction over the res and in that event, the jurisdiction over the person of said defendant is not essential.2*)

287

'u4&an v. Catoli a, 65 Phil. 257 [19)7]! 'ruen3er+ v. Court of #**eals, (o. 5145948, Se*te&3er 1", 1985, 1)8 sCR# 471 Cited in C,.C v. Court of #**eals, supra, note 286. 288 S*ouses Sal+ado v. Court of #**eals, (o. 5155)81, 6ar h 26, 1984, 128 SCR# )95! C,.C v. Court of #**eals, supra, note 286. 289 7.S. v. (a&it, )8 Phil. 926 [1918]. 29" 'eneral v. 2e 8ene ia, 78 Phil. 78" [1947] 291 'ruen3er+ v. Court of #**eals, supra, note 287. 292 29 vs. ,na+e, (o. 5 1 )5)51, 6ar h 17, 1976, 7" SCR# 96. 29) 6a3ana+ v. 'alle&ore, 81 Phil. 254 [1948]

-2-

+. /tages in the (ssuance of the 8rit The grant of the provisional remedy of attachment practically involves three ()) stages: first, the court issues the order granting the application' second, the writ of attachment issues pursuant to the order granting the writ' and third, the writ is implemented. 5or the initial two stages, it is not necessary that jurisdiction over the person of the defendant should first e o tained. :owever, once the implementation commences, it is re-uired that the court must have ac-uired jurisdiction over the defendant for without such jurisdiction, the court has no power and authority to act in any manner against the defendant. #ny order issuing from the court will not ind the defendant. 2*" # preliminary attachment is a rigorous remedy which e.poses the de tor to humiliation and annoyance, such that it should not e a used to cause unnecessary prejudice. (t is, therefore, the duty of the court, efore issuing the writ, to ensure that all the re-uisites of the law have een complied with' otherwise, the judge acts in e.cess of its jurisdiction and the writ so issued shall e null and void. 2*% The affidavit must esta lish that: 1) a sufficient cause of action e.ists' 2) the case is one of those mentioned in $ule %&, /ection 1' )) there is no sufficient security for the claim sought to e enforced y the action' ") the amount due to the applicant is as much as the sum for which the order is granted a ove all legal counterclaims. 5ailure of the affidavit to show that there is no other sufficient security for the claim sought to e enforced y the action, that the said amount due to the plaintiff a ove all legal set9 offs or counterclaim is as much as the sum for which the order is sought renders that application fatally defective.2*+ 8hether or not the affidavit sufficiently esta lished facts therein stated is a -uestion to e determined y the court in the e.ercise of sound discretion. The mere filing of an affidavit reciting the facts re-uired y the a ove provision is not sufficient to compel the judge to grant the writ. (t all depends upon the amount of credit given it y the judge who may accept or reject it in the e.ercise of his discretion.2*& &. 7rders granting or denying provisional remedies are merely interlocutory and cannot e the su ject of an appeal. They may however e challenged efore a superior court through a petition for certiorari under $ule +%. !. (mportant 6urisprudential $ules !.1 The purposes of preliminary attachment are:
294 295

Cuartero v. Court of #**eals, '.R. (o. 1"2448, #u+ust 5, 1992, 212 SCR# 26". Salas v. #dil, (o. 5146""9, 6a9 14, 1979, 9" SCR# 121! S*ouses Sal+ado v. Court of #**eals, supra, note 288. 296 'u4&an v. Catoli a, supra, note 287! :.;. 'lass Constru tion Co., .n . v. 8alen4uela, (o. 5148756, Se*te&3er 11, 1982, 116 SCR# 56)! <ardine 6anila =inan e, .n . v. Court of #**eals, '.R. (o. 55272, #*ril 1", 1989, 171 sCR# 6)6. 297 5a 'ran>a .n . v. Sa&son, 58 Phil. )78 [19))].

-3-

1) to sei;e the property of the de tor in advance of final judgment and to hold it for purposes of satisfying the said judgment' or 2) to ena le the court to ac-uire jurisdiction over the action y the actual or constructive sei;ure of the property in those instances where personal service of summons on the creditor cannot e effected. 2*! Thus, a proceeding in attachment is in rem where the defendant does not appear, and in personam where he appears in the action.2** 8here a lien already e.ists, e.g. a maritime lien, the same is e-uivalent to an attachment, ),,just li2e that under a real estate mortgage. !.2 $ule on Prior or 1ontemporaneous 6urisdiction #lthough a writ of preliminary attachment may e issued ex-parte or even efore service of summons on the defendant, it cannot however e implemented until the court has ac-uired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. ),1 !.) 8hen the ground relied upon in as2ing for preliminary attachment is impending fraudulent removal, concealment and disposition of defendant3s property under paragraphs (d) and (e) of /ection 1, $ule %&, the court should either conduct a hearing or re-uire the su mission of counter9affidavits from the defendant to gather facts in support of the allegations of fraud. ),2 !." Preliminary attachment may e granted in an action for a specified amount even when the claim is unli-uidated other than for moral and e.emplary damages.),) !.% (f a property has een levied upon y virtue of a writ of preliminary attachment, it ecomes one under custodia legis and a su se-uent e.trajudicial foreclosure of said property y a third9party mortgagee does not affect the lien created y the attachment.)," !.+ # foreign corporation duly licensed to do usiness in the Philippines is not a non9resident within the meaning of /ection 1(f), $ule %&' hence, its property here may not e attached on the mere ground that it is a non9resident. ),% (nsolvency of the defendant de tor is not a ground ofr the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment.),+ /ection 1(f), concerning summons y pu lication, refers to those cases in /ections 1" and 1+ of $ule 1".

298

6a3ana+ v. 'alle&ore, supra, note 29)! ?uasha v. <uan, (o. 514914", (ove&3er 19, 1982, 118 SCR# 5"5. 299 @an o ,s*anol1=ili*ino v. Palan a, )7 Phil. 921 [1918]. )"" ?uasha v. <uan, supra, note 298. )"1 Rules of Court, Rule 57, Se . 5. )"2 #dla$an v. %orres, '.R. (os 65957158, <ul9 5, 1994, 2)) SCR# 645. )") Rules of Court, Rule 57, Se . 1/a0. )"4 Consolidated @anA and %rust Cor*oration v. .nter&ediate #**ellate Court, (o. 517)796, 6a9 29, 1987, 15" SCR# 591. )"5 Claude (eon 5i+hts, =ed., .n . v. Phili**ine #dvertisin+ Cor*oration, 57 Phil. 6"7 [19)2]. )"6 #3oiti4 and Co., .n . v. Provin ial Sheriff, (o. 51)599", <une 17, 1981, 1"5 SCR# 88.

-4-

!.& Property e.empt from e.ecution is also e.empt from preliminary attachment or garnishment.),& <arnishment does not lie against the funds of the regular departments or offices of the <overnment, ut funds of pu lic corporations are not e.empt from garnishment.),! Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order There is no power the e.ercise of which is more delicate which re-uires greater caution, deli eration, and sound discretion, or (which is) more dangerous in a dou tful case than the issuing of an injunction, it is the strong arm of e-uity that never ought to e e.tended unless to cases of great injury, where courts of law cannot afford an ade-uate or commensurate remedy in damages.),* 1. Two (2) kinds of Preliminary Injunction 1.1 Preliminary Prohi itory (njunction which re-uires a person to refrain from a particular act' and 1.2 Preliminary =andatory (njunction which re-uires a person to perform a particular act. 1aveat: #dministrative 1ircular ,&9** To all judges of all lower courts: $e >.ercise of ?tmost 1aution, Prudence, and 6udiciousness in (ssuance of Temporary $estraining 7rders and 8rits of Preliminary (njunction 2. Purpose To prevent future injury and maintain the status quo @ the last actual, peacea le, uncontested status which preceded the pending controversy. )1, The sole o ject of preliminary injunction is to maintain the status quo until the merits can e heard.)11 /uspension of orders is e-uivalent to injunction.)12 # writ of preliminary injunction, as an ancillary or preventive remedy, may only e resorted to y a litigant to protect or preserve his rights or interest and for no other purpose during the pendency of the principal action.)1) 3. Definition of status quo

)"7 )"8

Rules of Court, Rule 57, Se . 5 Phili**ine (ational @anA v. Pa3alan, (o. 51))112, <une 15, 1978, 8) SCR# 595. )"9 28 #&. <ur. 2"1, .81# 8i ente <. =ran is o, %he Revised Rules of Court of the Phili**ines 179 [1971] Buoted in 7niversit9 of the Phili**ines v. Catun+al, <r. '.R. (o. 12186) 6a9 5,1997, 272 SCR# 221, 2)6. )1" Rivera v. =lorendo, (o. 5157586, ; to3er 8, 1986, 144 SCR# 64)! :ne ht v. Court of #**eals, '. R. (o. 56122, (ove&3er 18, 199), 228 SCR# 1. )11 Searth Co&&odities Cor*. v. Court of #**eals, '. R. (o. 642"", 6ar h )1, 1992, 2"7 SCR# 622. )12 Phili**ine (ational @anA v. #dil, '. R. (o. 515285), (ove&3er 2, 1982, 118 SCR# 11". )1) @en+4on v. Court of #**eals, (o. 5182568, )1 6a9 1988, 161 SCR# 745.

-5-

The status quo is the last actual peacea le uncontested status that preceded the pending controversy.)1"
8hen parties are ordered to maintain the status quo in a T$7, ut the prevailing condition at the time of its issuance is already that resulting from acts of usurpation y one of the parties, which acts of usurpation are clearly esta lished in the pleadings, that T$7 amounts to a perpetuation of the injurious effects of such acts of usurpation' such a state of things cannot clearly e allowed, for the office of the writ of injunction is to restrain the wrongdoer, not to protect him.)1%

4. Independent action merely to o tain preliminary injunction is not allo!ed. "ome su stantive relie# must e sought.$%& # writ of preliminary injunction, as an ancillary preventive remedy, may only e resorted to y a litigant to protect or preserve his rights or interest and for no other purpose during the pendency of the principal action.)1& . !ssential "equisites for Issuance of Preliminary Injunction %.1 There must e right in esse or the e.istence of a right to e protected. %.2 The act against which the injunction is to e directed is a violation of such right.)1! #. "ulin$s +.1 # writ of preliminary injunction, as an ancillary or preventive remedy, may only e resorted to y a litigant to protect or preserve his rights or interests and for no other purpose during the pendency of the action. )1* (t should only e granted if the party as2ing for it is clearly entitled thereto.)2, +.2 #n injunction will not issue to protect a right not in esse and which may never arise or to restrain an act which does not give rise to a cause of action. There must e.ist an actual right.)21 %. &ummary denial wit'out adequate 'earin$ improper 8hile in the issuance of preliminary injunction, the courts are given sufficient discretion to determine the necessity for the grant of the relief prayed for as it affects the respective rights of the parties, with the caveat that e.treme caution e o served in the e.ercise of
)14 )15

Searth Co&&odities Cor*. v. Court of #**eals, supra, note )11. @ua9an Cattle Co., .n . v. ?uintillan, '. R. (o. 512697", 6ar h 19, 1984, 128 SCR# 276! 8illanueva v. Court of #**eals, '. R. (o. 117661, <ul9 15,1996, 259 SCR# 14 . )16 @en+4on v. Court of #**eals, '.R. (o. 82568, 6a9 )1, 1988, 161 SCR# 745! Cootau o v. Court of #**eals, '. R. (o. 56565, <une 16, 1988, 162 SCR# 122! @ua9an v. ?uintillan, supra, note )15. )17 Ibid. )18 @ua9an Cattle Co. v. ?uintillian, supra, note )15! Saulo+ v. Court of #**eals, '.R. (o. 119769 Se*te&3er 18, 1996, 262 SCR# 51! #r e+a v. Court of #**eals '.R. (o 1222"6 <ul9 7, 1997, 275 SCR# 176. )19 China @anAin+ Cor*oration v. Court of #**eals '.R. (o. 121158, 2e e&3er 5, 1996, 265 SCR# )27. )2" Cli&a o v. 6a adae+, 114 Phil. 87" [1962]! Su3ido v. 'o*en+ o, '. R. (o. 25618, 6ar h 28, 1969, 27 SCR# 455! Poli e Co&&ission v. @ello, '. R. (os. 2995916", <anuar9 )", 1971, )7 SCR# 2)"! Ca*itol 6edi al Center, .n . v. Court of #**eals, '.R. (o. 82499, ; t. 1), 1989, 178 SCR# 49). )21 Re*u3li of the Phili**ines v. 8illara&a '.R. (o. 1177)), Se*te&3er 5, 1997, 278 SCR# 7)6! @ua9an v. ?uintillan, supra, note )15.

-6-

such discretion, it is with an e-ual degree of care and caution that courts ought to proceed in the denial of the writ. (t should not just summarily issue an order of denial without an ade-uate hearing and judicious evaluation of the merits of the application. # perfunctory and improvident action in this regard would e a denial of procedural due process and could result in irrepara le prejudice to a party. )22 (. )'en 'earin$ on t'e merits unnecessary
... (f the ground is the insufficiency of the complaint, the same is apparent from the complaint itself. Preliminary injunction in such a circumstance may e refused outright, with or without notice to the adverse party. (n fact, under /ection + of $ule %!, the court may also refuse an injunction on other grounds on the asis of affidavits which may have een su mitted y the parties in connection with such application. ... ... (/ection & of $ule %!) merely specifies the actions that the court may ta2e on the application for the writ if there is a hearing on the merits. (t does not declare that such hearing is mandatory or prere-uisite thereof. 7therwise, the courts will e forced to conduct a hearing even if from a consideration of the pleadings alone it can readily e ascertained that the movant is not entitled to the writ. ... (t would e different ... if there is a prima facie showing on the face of the motion or pleadings that the grant of preliminary injunction may e proper, in which case notice to the opposing party would e necessary since the grant of such writ on an ex parte proceeding is now proscri ed.... ((f there is a prima facie showing that preliminary injunction is proper) a hearing should e conducted, since under such circumstance, only in cases of e.treme urgency will the writ issue prior to a final hearing. /uch re-uirement for prior notice and hearing underscores the necessity that a writ of preliminary injunction is to e dispensed with circumspection and oth sides should e heard whenever possi le. Aut it does not follow that such a hearing is indispensa le where right at the outset the court is reasona ly convinced that the writ will not lie. 8hat was then discouraged and is now specifically prohi ited is the issuance of the writ without notice and hearing. B..)2)

*. +ases w'ere Injunction was 'eld improper *.1 To restrain collection of ta.es)2" e.cept where there are special circumstances that ear the e.istence of irrepara le injury. )2% *.2 To restrain the sale of conjugal properties where the claim can e annotated on the title as a lien such as the hus and3s o ligation to give support. )2+ *.) To restrain a mayor proclaimed as duly elected from assuming his office. )2& *." #gainst consummated acts.)2! *.".1 #gainst disposing of the case on the merits.)2* *.".2 8rit of injunction is not proper to stop the e.ecution of judgment where the judgment was already e.ecuted.)),
)22 )2)

@ata lan v. Court of #**eals, '. R. (o. 78148, <ul9 )1, 1989, 175 SCR# 764. 8alle9 %radin+ Co., .n . v. Court of =irst .nstan e, '.R. (o. 49529, )1 6ar h 1989, 171 SCR# 5"1. )24 Ibid. )25 Chur hill C %ait v. Raffert9, )2 Phil. 58" [1915]. )26 Saavedra v. ,strada 56 Phil.)) [19)1]. )27 Cereno v. 2i tado, (o. 518155", #*ril 15, 1988, 16" SCR# 759. )28 Phili**ine (ational @anA v. #dil, supra, note )12. )29 'overn&ent Servi e .nsuran e S9ste& /'S.S0 v. =lorendo, '. R. (o. 486"), Se*te&3er 29, 1989, 178 SCR# 76! ;rti+as and Co&*an9 5i&ited Partnershi* v. Court of #**eals, (o. 5179128, <une 16, 1988, 162 SCR# 165. ))" 6eneses v. 2in+lasan, 81 Phil. 47" [1948].

-7-

*.".) The 15( has no power to issue a writ of injunction against the $egister of 0eeds if its effect is to render nugatory a writ of e.ecution issued y the 4ational Ca or $elations 1ommission.))1 *."." # writ of injunction is not proper to stop the e.ecution of judgment where the judgment was already e.ecuted.))2 Aut where the lower court enforced its judgment efore a party against whom the e.ecution was enforced could elevate her appeal in an injunction suit, which was instituted to prevent said e.ecution, an independent petition for injunction in the 1ourt of #ppeals is justified.))) *." 4ot #llowed To Transfer Possession # court should not y means of a preliminary injunction transfer the property in litigation from the possession of one party to another where the legal title is in dispute and the party having possession asserts ownership thereto. ))" The function of injunction is to preserve the status quo ante.))% This is more particularly applica le where the legal title is in dispute and the party having possession asserts ownership in himself.))+ 1,. !-ceptions 1,.1 5orci le entries in which the 1ourt may issue preliminary mandatory injunction))& and y /ection 2, thereof involving leases in which the court may, on appeal, grant similar mandatory injunctive relief. The e.ception applies only to ejectment cases e.clusively cogni;a le y the municipal court. ))! 1,.2 Property covered y Torrens Title when there is a clear finding of ownership and possession of the land or unless the su ject property is covered y a Torrens Title pointing to one of the parties as the undisputed owner. ))* 11. +ases w'ere injunction pro'i.ited 11.1 (njunction against courts or tri unals of co9e-ual ran2 prohi ited. )", 11.2 (njunction orders are prohi ited in the la or cases. )"1
))1 ))2

#&3rosio v. Salvador, (o. 5147651, 2e e&3er 11, 1978, 87 SCR# 217. 6eneses v. 2in+lasan, supra, note ))". ))) 6anila Suret9 and =idelit9 v. %eodoro, '. R. (o. 2"5)", <une 29, 1967, 2" SCR# 46). ))4 %o9ota 6otors Phili**ines Cor*oration v. Court of #**eals, '. R. (o. 1"2881, 2e . 7, 1992, 216 SCR# 2)6. ))5 :ne ht v. Court of #**eals, '. R. (o. 56122, (ove&3er 18, 199), 228 SCR# 1. ))6 'ordillo and 6artine4 v. 2el Rosario, )9 Phil. 829 [1919]. ))7 Rules of Court, Rule 7", Se . 15. ))8 Ra&os v. Court of #**eals, '.R. 81)54, <ul9 26, 1988, 16) SCR# 58). ))9 'S.S v. =lorendo, supra, note )29! Ca+a9an de ;ro Cit9 5andless Residents #sso iation, .n . v. Court of #**eals, '. R. (o. 1"6"4), 6ar h 4, 1996, 254 SCR# 229. )4" Roldan, <r. v. #r a, '. R. (o. 254)4, <ul9 25, 1975, 65 SCR# ))6. )41 #sso iated 5a3or 7nion /#:71%7CP0 v. @orro&eo, (o. 51757)6, Se*te&3er 29, 1988, 166 SCR# 99! Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa v. Sarmiento, (o. 514785), (ove&3er 16, 1984, 1)) SCR# 22".

-8-

11.) 4o injunction eyond prayer in complaint. )"2 11." To enjoin the prosecution of criminal proceedings. )") 12. +ases w'ere +riminal Prosecutions were !njoined 3// 1) 5or the orderly administration of justice' 2) To prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an oppresive and vindictive manner' )) To avoid multiplicity of actions' ") To afford ade-uate protection of constitutional rights' %) (n proper cases ecause the statute relied upon is unconstitutional or was held invalid')"% +) 8here the constitutionality of the 1hinese Aoo2 Deeping Caw was -uestioned' )"+ &) 8here the hearing of the li el case was enjoined y permanent injunction after the /upreme 1ourt in a separate case found the communication alleged to e li elous as privileged and not li elous')"& !) 8here a traffic ordinance was found to e invalid' )"! and *) 8here the fiscal was restrained from further proceeding with criminal case found to e civil in nature.)"* 4ote: This was later on reconsidered.)%, 13. 0andatory Injunction 1).1 $e-uisites # mandatory injunction is granted only on a showing that: (1) The invasion of the right is material and su stantial' (2) The right of a complainant is clear and unmista2a le' ()) There is an urgent and permanent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.)%1
)42 )4)

%he Chief of Staff, #=P v. 'uadi4, <r., (o. 51)5""7, 2e e&3er )9, 198", 1"1 SCR# 827. Ro&ero v. %he Chief of Staff, #=P, '. R. (o. 84"76, =e3ruar9 2", 1989, 17" SCR# 1"8! Re9es v. Ca&ilon, '. R. (o. 46198, 2e e&3er 2", 199", 192 SCR# 445. )44 @ro Aa v. ,nrile, '. R. (os. 6986)165, 2e e&3er 1", 199", 192 SCR# 182. )45 <ustiniani v. Castillo, (o. 5141114, <une 21, 1988, 162 SCR# )78. )46 Du Con+ ,n+ v. %rinidad, 47 Phil. )85 [1925]. )47 #n+ v. Castro, '. R. (o. 5166)71, 6a9 15, 1985, 1)6 SCR# 45)! <ustiniani v. Castillo, supra, note )45. )48 Pri&i ias v. 6uni i*alit9 of 7rdaneta, Pan+asinan, (o. 51267"2, ; to3er 18, 1979, 9) SCR# 462. )49 'uin+ona v. Cit9 =is al of 6anila, (o. 516"")), #*ril 4, 1984, 128 SCR# 577. )5" 'uin+ona v. Cit9 =is al of 6anila, Re onsidered, Resolution, 1)7 SCR# 597.

-9-

1/. +ases w'ere 0andatory Injunction not 1ranted =andatory injunction was not granted in the following instances: (1) to compel coha itation')%2 (2) in cancellation of attachment')%) and ()) in release of imported goods pending hearing efore 1ommissioner of 1ustoms.)%" (") (njunctions are also not availa le to ta2e property out of the possession or control of one party and place it into that of another whose title has not clearly een esta lished.)%% The office of the writ of injunction is to restrain the wrongdoer )%+ not to protect him.)%& 1 . Injunction a$ainst courts or tri.unals of co2equal rank is pro'i.ited 1%.1 # court may not interfere y injunction with the judgments or orders of another court of coordinate and concurrent jurisdiction.)%! The principle applies regardless of whether it is an ordinary action or a special civil action. 1%.2 4o writ may e issued y the $egional Trial 1ourt against -uasi9judicial odies of e-ual ran2 such as /ocial /ecurity 1ommission, /ecurities and >.change 1ommission,)%* (ntellectual Property 7ffice, 1ommission on >lections, or 8or2men3s 1ompensation 1ommission.)+, 1%.) (nferior courts may issue writs of preliminary injunction only in forci le entry and unlawful detainer cases. The e.clusive original jurisdiction of the inferior court in civil cases now includes the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases. )+1 1#. &tatutory Pro'i.itions a$ainst t'e Issuance of a )rit of Preliminary Injunction (njunction orders are prohi ited in the following cases:

)51

Pele>o v. Court of #**eals, (o. 516"8"", ; to3er 18, 1982, 117 SCR# 666! Rivera v. =lorendo, (o. 51 6""66, <ul9 )1, 1986, 14) SCR# 278. )52 #rro9o v. 8asBue4, 42 Phil. 54 [1921]. )5) 5ev9 Eer&anos v. 5a son, 71 Phil. 94 [194"]. )54 Co&&issioner of Custo&s v. Clori3el, '. R. (o. 2"266, <anuar9 )1, 1967, 19 SCR# 2)4. )55 ,&ilia v. @ado, '. R. (o. 2)685, #*ril 25, 1968, 2) SCR# 18)! Pio v. 6ar os, '. R. (o. 27849, #*ril )", 1974, 56 SCR# 726. )56 Calo v. Roldan, supra, note 284. )57 @ua9an Cattle v. ?uintillian, supra, note )15. )58 Roldan, <r. v. #r a, '. R. (o. 254)4, <ul9 25, 1975 65 SCR# ))6! #3iera vs. Court of #**eals, '. R. (o. 26294, 6a9 )1, 1972, 45 SCR# )14. )59 Phili**ine Pa ifi =ishin+ Co., .n . v. 5una, (o. 5159"7", 6ar h 15, 1982, 112 SCR# 6"4. )6" (o no v. 8era, (o. 51)77)7, =e3ruar9 27, 1979, 88 SCR# 529. )61 @P @l+. 129, Se . ))! Vide Refer to Rules of Court, Rule 7", Se . 15.

- 10 -

1+.1 ?nder Aatas Pam ansa Alg. 22& amending #rt. 2%% (Ca or 1ode), no temporary or permanent injunction in cases growing out of la or dispute shall e issued y a court or other entity e.cept as otherwise provided in #rticles 2!1 and 2+" of this 1ode.)+2 ?nder Presidential 0ecree 4o. 21!, it is the 4ational Ca or $elations 1ommission (4C$1) that issues an injunction in la or disputes.)+) 1+.2 $ep. #ct 4o. !&)% Prohi ition of issuance of temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, or preliminary mandatory injunctions against government infrastructure projects. The law e.pressly repeals Presidential 0ecree 4o. +,% (prohi iting injunction involving concessions, licenses and other permits issued y pu lic administrative office or odies for the e.ploitation of natural resources) and Presidential 0ecree 4o. 1!1! (prohi iting injunction in cases involving infrastructures and natural resources development and pu lic utilities))+". 1+.) Presidential 0ecree 4o. )!% Prohi ition to issue injunction against any government financing institution in any action ta2en y such institution in connection with the mandatory foreclosure where arrears amount to at least 2,E of the total outstanding o ligations including interest and other charges as appearing in the oo2 of accounts andFor related records of the financial institutions concerned.)+% Presidential 0ecree 4o. )!% cannot however, e applied where the e.tent of the loan actually received y the orrower is still to e determined. )++ (t is not also applica le to properties already foreclosed. The prohi ition found in Presidential 0ecree 4o. )!% against the issuance of injunctions y lower courts, unless certain conditions are met, applies only to foreclosure proceedings initiated y government financing institutions li2e the 0evelopment Aan2 of the Philippines. )+& 1+." 4o restraining order or preliminary injunction against the Presidential #grarian $eform 1ouncil (P#$1) 4o court in the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction against P#$1 or any of its duly authori;ed or designated agencies in any case, dispute or controversy arising from, necessary to, or in connection with the application, implementation, enforcement, or interpretation of this #ct and other pertinent laws on agrarian reform. )+!
)62 )6)

#sso iated 5a3or 7nion /#571%7CP0 v. @orro&eo, supra, note )41. Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa v. Sar&iento, supra, note )41. )64 (ational Po$er Cor*oration v. 8era, '.R. (o. 8)558, 27 =e3. 1989, 17" SCR# 721. )65 =ili*inas 6ar3le Cor*oration v. .nter&ediate #**ellate Court, (o. 5168"1", 6a9 )", 1986, 142 SCR# 18". )66 =ili*inas 6ar3le Cor*oration v. .nter&ediate #**ellate Court, ibid.! 'overn&ent Servi e .nsuran e S9ste& v. Court of #**eals, '.R. (o. 42278, <anuar9 2", 1989, 169 SCR# 244. )67 Searth Co&&odities Cor*oration v. Court of #**eals, supra, note )11! Re*u3li of the Phili**ines v. Court of #**eals '.R. (o.1"794), =e3. ), 2""". )68 Se . 55, C#RP 5a$.

- 11 -

1+.% Prohi ition to issue injunction against the #sset Privati;ation Trust (#PT) )+* 1+.+ # court should issue a writ of preliminary injunction only when the petitioner assailing a statute or administrative order has made out a case of unconstitutionality aside from showing a clear legal right to the remedy sought. )&, 1+.& Presidential 0ecree 4o. +,% which prohi its courts from e.ercising jurisdiction to issue preliminary injunction in a case involving the issuance or approval y administrative officials of pu lic grants in connection with the e.ploitation of natural resources, does not apply in a case where the complaint does not put in issue the legitimacy of the defendant3s claim of eing holders of mining lease contracts, ut asserts that defendants had rights.)&1 1%. Injunctions not issued w'ere act sou$'t to .e pre3ented 'ad .een committed #n injunction suit ecomes moot and academic after the act sought to e enjoined had already een consummated.)&2 # prohi itory injunction cannot e issued when the act sought to e enjoined has already een committed. )&) 1(. 4o injunction .eyond prayer in complaint 1ourts should not issue orders or injunctions eyond those prayed for in the complaint. )&" %'. Temporary Restraining Order The procedural guidelines in the issuance of T$7 and Preliminary (njunction in a =ultiple Sala 1ourt are provided for in /upreme 1ourt #dministrative 1ircular 4o. 2,9*%.
8hen an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order is included in a complaint or any initiatory pleading, the case, if filed in a multiple9 sala court, shall proceed as follows: (a) Gerified application and ond for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order' ( ) 0etermination from facts shown y affidavits or y the verified application that great or irrepara le injury would result to the applicant efore the matter can e heard on notice. (c) (f the matter is of e.treme urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and irrepara le injury, the e.ecutive judge of a multiple9sala court or the presiding judge of a single9sala court may issue ex parte a temporary restraining order effective for only seventy9two (&2) hours from issuance' (d) (n either case, even if no T$7 had een issued ecause there is no e.treme urgency, the case shall e raffled only after notice to and in the presence of the adverse party or the person to e enjoined. (n any event, such notice shall e preceded, or contemporaneously accompanied, y service of summons, together with a copy of the complaint or initiatory pleading and the applicant3s affidavit and ond, upon the adverse party in the Philippines.

)69

Se . )11#, Pro la&ation (o. 5"1#! 6antruste S9ste& v. Court of #**eals, '.R. (os. 8654"141, (ove&3er 6, 1989, 179 SCR# 1)6. )7" %a3larin v. 'utierre4, (o. 5178164, <ul9 )1, 1987, 152 SCR# 7)". )71 2.C. Cr9stal, .n . v. 5a9a, '.R. (o. 5)597, =e3ruar9 28, 1989, 17" SCR# 7)4. )72 Phili**ine Co&&er ial and .ndustrial @anA v. (ational 6ines and #llied ForAers 7nion /(#6#F71 6.=0, (o. 515"4"7, #u+ust 19, 1982, 115 SCR# 87)! Ro&ulo v. DGi+ue4, (o. 51719"8, =e3ruar9 4, 1986, 141 SCR# 26)! Rivera v. =lorendo, (o. 5157586, ; to3er 8, 1986, 144 SCR# 658. )7) Phili**ine (ational @anA v. #dil, supra, note )12! Ra&os, Sr. v. Court of #**eals, '.R. (os. 8"9"81"9, 6a9 24, 1989, 17) SCR# 55". )74 %he Chief of Staff, #=P v. 'uadi4, <r., supra, note )42.

- 12 -

:owever, (1) where the summons could not e served personally or y su stituted service despite diligent efforts, or (2) the adverse party is a resident of the Philippines temporarily a sent therefrom or is a nonresident thereof, the re-uirement of prior or contemporaneous service of summons shall not apply. (e) (f no T$7 has een issued ecause there is no e.treme urgency, the application for a temporary restraining order shall thereafter e acted upon only after all parties are heard in a summary hearing which shall e conducted within twenty9four (2") hours after the sheriff3s return of service andFor the records are received y the ranch selected y raffle and to which the records shall e transmitted immediately. (f) 8ithin the aforesaid seventy9two (&2) hours, the judge efore whom the case is pending shall conduct a summary hearing to determine whether the temporary restraining order shall e e.tended until the application for preliminary injunction can e heard. (n no case shall the total period of effectivity of the temporary restraining order e.ceed twenty (2,) days, including the original seventy9 two hours provided herein. (g) 0etermination within twenty days from service of the T$7 on the party sought to e enjoined whether a preliminary injunction shall issue or not. (h) The effectivity of a temporary restraining order is not e.tendi le without need of any judicial declaration to that effect and no court shall have authority to e.tend or renew the same on the same ground for which it was issued. #nother restraining order may, therefore, e issued provided it is not ased on the same ground.

Receivership 1. 5ppointment of a "ecei3er The general rule is that neither party to the litigation should e appointed as a receiver without the consent of the other ecause a receiver is supposed to e an impartial and disinterested person.)&% # cler2 of court should not e appointed as a receiver as he is already urdened with his official duties.)&+ 2. &pecific situations w'en a recei3er may .e appointed 2.1 5amily 1ode, #rticle 1,1 (f a spouse without just cause a andons the other or fails to comply with hisFher o ligations to the family, the aggrieved spouse may petition the court for receivership. 2.2 $ules of 1ourt, /ec. "1, $ule )* The court may appoint a receiver of the property of the judgment o ligor' and it may also for id a transfer or other disposition of, or any interference with, the property of the judgment o ligor not e.empt from e.ecution. 2.) #fter the perfection of an appeal, the trial court retains jurisdiction to appoint a receiver of the property under litigation since this matter does not touch upon the su ject of the appeal.)&&
)75 )76

#l antara v. #33as, (o. 511489". Se*te&3er )", 196), 9 SCR# 54. #3ri+o v. :a9anan, (o. 51286"1, 6ar h 18, 198), 121 SCR# 2". )77 Rules of Court, Rule 41, Se . 9! # uGa v. Calua+, 1"1 Phil. 446 [1957].

- 13 -

2." #fter final judgment, a receiver may e appointed as an aid to the e.ecution of judgment.)&! 2.% #ppointment of a receiver over the property in custodia legis may e allowed when it is justified y special circumstances as when it is reasona ly necessary to secure and protect the rights of the real owner. )&*

Replevin 1. &teps in t'e Issuance and Implementation of a )rit of "eple3in 1.1 # party praying for the recovery of possession of a personal property files with the court at the commencement of the action or efore answer in application for a writ of replevin.)!, To accompany the application is the affidavit which should state that: (1) that the applicant is the owner of the property claimed, particularly descri ing it, or is entitled to the possession thereof' (2) that the property is wrongfully detained y the adverse party, alleging the cause of detention thereof according to the est of his 2nowledge, information, and elief' ()) that the property has not een distrained or ta2en for a ta. assessment or a fine pursuant to law, or sei;ed under a writ of e.ecution or preliminary attachment , or otherwise placed under custodia legis, or if so sei;ed, that it is e.empt from such sei;ure or custody' and (") the actual mar2et value of the property. 2. 4otes (1) The applicant of a writ of replevin need not e the owner for it is enough if he has a right to possess it.)!1 (2) $eplevin cannot e availed of if the property is in custodia legis as where it is under attachment or was sei;ed under a search warant )!2 e.cept: a. when the sei;ure is illegal')!) and

)78 )79

Phili**ine %rust Co&*an9 v. Santa&aria, 5) Phil. 46) [1929]. 2olar v. Sundia&, (o. 51276)1, #*ril )", 1971, )8 SCR# 616. )8" Rules of Court, Rule 6", Se . 1. )81 Dan+ v. 8alde4, '. R. (o. 7))17, #u+ust )1, 1989, 177 SCR# 141. )82 Pa+Aalina$an v. 'o&e4, (os. 5122585, 2e e&3er 16, 1967, 21 SCR# 1275! Rules of Court, Rule 6", Se . 2 / 0. )8) @a+aliho+ v. =ernande4, '. R. (o. 96)56, <une 27, 1991, 198 SCR# 614.

- 14 -

. where there is reason to elieve that the sei;ure will not anymore e followed y the filing of the criminal action in court or there are conflicting claims.)!" $. The de#endant is entitled to the return o# the property ta(en under a !rit o# replevin i# the #ollo!ing re)uisites are met* (1) /Fhe posts a redelivery ond and (2) /Fhe furnishes the plaintiff of a copy of the underta2ing within five (%) days from ta2ing and ()) the ond is sufficient and in proper form.)!%

"upport Pendente 6ite 1. 4otes and +ases 1.1 /upport pendente lite can e granted y the court in two (2) instances: (1) civil action for support' and (2) criminal action where civil lia ility includes support for the offspring as a conse-uence of the crime. 1.2 8here the right to support is put in issue y the pleadings or the fact from which the right to support arises is in controversy or has not een esta lished, the court cannot grant support pendente lite !"# 1.) The amount of support pendente lite is not final in character in the sense that it can e the su ject of modification depending on the changing conditions affecting the a ility of the o ligor to pay the amount fi.ed for support. )!& 1." (f an application for support pendente lite is denied, the remedy is certiorari 1.% =ere affidavits or other documents appearing in the record are sufficient asis for the court to determine amount of support pendente lite !"" 1.+ /upport pendente lite are allowed in criminal actions where the civil lia ility includes support for the offspring as a conse-uence of the crime and the civil aspect thereof has not een waived, reserved or instituted prior to its filing. )!*

)84 )85

Chua v. Court of #**eals, '. R. (o. 79"21, 6a9 17, 199), 222 SCR# 85. Rules of Court, Rule 6", Se s. 5 and 6. )86 =ran is o v. Handueta, 61 Phil. 752 [1929]. )87 San <uan v. 8alen4uela, (o. 51599"6, ; to3er 2), 1982, 117 SCR# 926. )88 Re9es v. .nes15u iano, (o. 5148219, =e3ruar9 28, 1979, 88 SCR# 8"). )89 Rules of Court, Rule 6, Se . 6.

- 15 -