One liner

1.) Limitless Potentials vs Court of Appeals

The dissolution of the injunction, even if the injunction was obtained in good faith, amounts
to a determination that the injunction was wrongfully obtained and a right of action on the
injunction bond immediately accrues.
2.) emirara Coal Corporation vs !"L #evelopment
The urgency and necessity for the issuance of a writ of mandatory injunction also cannot be
denied, considering that !"L stands to su$er material and substantial injury as a result of
petitioner%s continuous intrusion into the subject property
3.) China Banking Corporation vs Co
Absence of a showing that petitioners have an urgent and paramount need for a writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction to prevent irreparable damage, they are not entitled to
such writ
4.) Devesa vs Arbes
This court has fre&uently held, when treating of the special remedies by injunction,
mandamus and prohibition, which are provided in the new Code of Procedure in Civil
Cases, that the accepted American doctrine limiting the use of these remedies to
cases where there is no other ade&uate remedy.
5.) Preysler vs CA
The objective of a writ of preliminary injunction is to preserve the status &uo until the
merits of the case can be fully heard.
6.) Liitless Potentials !s CA
A Preliminary 'njunction is issued to preserve the status &uo ante, which is the last
actual, peaceful, and uncontested status that preceded the actual controversy, in
order to protect the rights of the plainti$ during the pendency of the suit.
".) #antile vs Ca$%!o The record shows that the prohibition was issued after the closing
of the canal ( moreover, in )unicipal council of anta *osa vs. Provincial +oard of La
Laguna ,- Phil. *ep., ./01, the rule was laid down that the commission of an act already
done can not be enjoined.
&.) 'eli!iano vs Alipio
't is not necessary to decide whether the petition for declaratory judgment be granted
in this case, because in the petition presented in the court below, in addition to the
declaratory judgment, the petitioners prayed for the issuance of a permanent
injunction, which is e&uivalent to an action for prohibition against public o2cers 333.
(.) a. )eirara Coal s%pra
4hen is )andatory 'njunction 'ssued
't is li5ewise established that a writ of mandatory injunction is granted upon a
showing that
,a1 the invasion of the right is material and substantial(
,b1 the right of complainant is clear and unmista5able( and
,c1 there is an urgent and permanent necessity for the writ to prevent serious
damage.
(. b Baray%ga vs A*ventist +niversity o, the Philippines.
A valid writ of preliminary injunction rests on the weight of evidence submitted by the
plainti$ establishing6
,a1 a present and unmista5able right to be protected(
,b1 the acts against which the injunction is directed violate such right( and
,c1 a special and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damages.
1-.) A%stralian Pro,essional .ealty /n!. vs #%ni!ipality o, Pa*re 0ar!ia Batangas
A clear legal right means one clearly founded in or granted by law or is enforceable as a
matter of law ( in the absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of the writ constitutes
grave abuse of discretion( the possibility of irreparable damage without proof of an
actual e3isting right is not a ground for injunction.
11.) P7+ vs *8 ventures
To be sure, this court has declared that the term irreparable injury has a de9nite meaning in
law. 't does not have reference to the amount of damages that may be caused but rather to
the di2culty of measuring the damages in:icted. 'f full compensation can be obtained by
way of damages, e&uity will not apply the remedy of injunction.
12.) A%stralian Pro,essional .ealty /n!. vs #%ni!ipality o, Pa*re 0ar!ia Batangas
#amages are irreparable where there is no standard by which their amount can be
measured with reasonable accuracy.
13.) ;rmita vs Aldecoa < #elorino
The distinction between statutory privileges and vested rights must be borne in mind
,or persons have no veste* rights in stat%tory privileges. The state may change
or ta5e away rights, which were created by the law of the state, although it may not
ta5e away property, which was vested by virtue of such rights.=> ,emphasis supplied1
)ore importantly, tari$ protection is not a right, but a privilege granted by the
government and, therefore, AP)P cannot claim redress for alleged violation thereof.
'n the present case, aside from AP)P?s allegations that the reduced tari$ rates will adversely
a$ect its members? business and may lead to closure, there is no showing what @irreparable
injury@ it stood to su$er with the implementation of ;.O. >A0.
'n 9ne, not only is there no showing of a clear right on the part of AP)P which was
violated( the injury sought to be protected is prospective in nature, hence, the
injunctive relief should not have been granted.
14.) #ungog vs CA
)oreover, the status &uo, which is the last actual peaceable uncontested status that
preceded the controversy,.= was that "othong Lines had access to the lots subject of
the Contract through the entrance gate in Lot =/-=BC.
15.) ;3ecutive ecretary vs CA
A writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the enforcement of penal laws cannot be based
on such conjectures or speculations.
The possible unconstitutionality of a statute, on its face, does not of itself justify an
injunction against good faith attempts to enforce it, unless there is a showing of bad
faith, harassment, or any other unusual circumstance that would call for e&uitable
relief.-. The @on its face@ invalidation of statutes has been described as @manifestly
strong medicine,@ to be employed @sparingly and only as a last resort,@ and is generally
disfavored.
To be entitled to a preliminary injunction to enjoin the enforcement of a law assailed to
be unconstitutional, the party must establish that it will su$er irreparable harm in the
absence of injunctive relief and must demonstrate that it is li5ely to succeed on the
merits, or that there are su2ciently serious &uestions going to the merits and the
balance of hardships tips decidedly in its favor.
16.) )abayo farms vs CA
Thus, a person who is not a party in the main suit, li5e private respondent in the instant
case, cannot be bound by an ancillary writ, such as the writ of preliminary injunction
issued against the defendants in Civil Case 7o. 00DE. !e cannot be a$ected by any
proceeding to which he is a stranger.