ASKED THE COURT TO ISSUE A TRO, PRELIM INJUNCTION, AND FINAL INJUNCTION,

TO PREVENT AND RESTRAIN FACEBOOK FROM POSTING HIS VIDEO AND SIMILAR
VIDEOS IN THE FUTURE, AS THIS CAN HAVE A NEGATIVE EFFECT ON THE PUBLIC,
PARTICULARLY THE CHILDREN WHO VIEWED HIS VIDEO
Elements of Cause of Action

 Right
 Obligation
 Breach

Injunction: A judicial writ, process of proceeding whereby a party is ordered to do or refrain from doing a
certain act
Restraining order – issued to preserve the status quo until the hearing of the application for preliminary
injunction which cannot be issued ex parte
Constitution

 Issuing the restraining order against Facebook is prior restraint which cannot stand the test of
constitutionality
 No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right
of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances

Preliminary Injunction
Grounds for issuance
1. Applicant is entitled to relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists in
restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, or in requiring
the performance of an act or acts either for a limited period or perpetually
Non-application:
2. Commission, continuance or non-performance of the act or acts complained of during the
litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant
Non-application:
3. 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 probably in violation of the rights of the applicant
respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgement
ineffectual.
Non-application:
Requisites for issuance:
1. Verified application showing that applicant is entitled thereto
- Right of plaintiff is not clear and is not unmistakable.
 - There is no willfull and unlawful invasion of plaintiff’s rights, over his protest and
remonstrance, the injury being a continuing one
2. Injunction bond in an amount to be fixed by the court
3. Hearing and prior notice to the party or person sought to be enjoined

Why it should not be applied:

Mabayo Farms v CA – a writ of preliminary injunction may therefore be restored to by a party to protect
or preserve his rights and for no other purpose during the pendency of the principal action
China Banking Corp. v Co – the 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
Light Rail Transit Authority v CA – the purpose of a preliminary injunction is to prevent threatened or
continuous irremediable injury to some of the parties before their claims can be thoroughly studied and
adjudicated

 Requisites
o A right in esse or a clear and unmistakable right to be protected
o A violation of that right
o That there is an urgent and permanent act and urgent necessity for the writ to prevent
serious damage

Bacolod City Water District v Hon. Labayen – A restraining order is issued to preserve the status quo until
the hearing of the application for preliminary injunction which cannot be issued ex parte
Buyco v Baraquia – writ of preliminary injunction is provisional because it constitutes a temporary measure
availed of during the pendency of the action and it is ancillary because it is a mere incident in and is
dependent upon the result of the main action

Nisce v Equitable PCI Bank – In the absence of proof of a legal right and the injury sustained by the plaintiff,
an order for th issuance of the writ will be nullified.

As regards social networks and an obligation to take down and prevent similar infringements, the Würz-
burg Regional Court held in the widely-reported37 case of Anas Modamani, that Facebook is not obliged
to proactively block any offensive content that might violate the claimant’s rights.38 Anas Modamani
sought an interim injunction to prevent Facebook from publishing similar infringing content linking him to
terrorist attacks in a bid to stop the proliferation of illegal content.39 The injunction was rejected due to
the findings that Facebook was neither a perpetrator or participant nor did Facebook breach a duty of
care as a Störer. The court recognised that host providers have to apply such duties of care, that can
reasonably be expected from them in order to detect and prevent certain types of illegal activities.40 A
duty to proactively search for similar infringements only arises if the host provider’s business model is laid
out to facilitate or specifically allow infringements of third party rights, as it is the case with certain share-
hosting services in relation to copyright infringements.