Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Provisional Remedies - Recent Jurisprudence (Doctrines)
Provisional Remedies - Recent Jurisprudence (Doctrines)
Injunction Bonds
The Supreme Court has time and again ruled that the posting of the bond is a
condition sine qua non before a writ of preliminary injunction may issue.
With regard to the issue of the injunctive bond, the Court has time and again ruled that
the posting of the bond is a condition sine qua non before a writ of preliminary injunction
may issue. Its purpose is to secure the person enjoined against any damage that he
may sustain in case the court should finally decide that the applicant was not entitled
thereto. The rule, does not mean, however, that the injunction maybe disregarded since
it becomes effective only after the bond is actually filed in court. In fact, in the case of
Consolidated Workers Union v. Court of Industrial Relations, 27 SCRA 438 (1969), the
Court declared that it was erroneous for the labor court not to require the party to file a
bond. Yet, the Court did not annul the writ of injunction but instead ordered the said
court to determine the appropriate amount of bond to be posted by the party.
LIGON vs. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 56 AT MAKATI CITY AND ITS
PRESIDING JUDGE, JUDGE REYNALDO M. LAIGO
G.R. No. 190028, February 26, 2014
Attachment
Receivership
Before appointing a receiver, courts should consider: (1) whether or not the injury
resulting from such appointment would probably be greater than the injury ensuing if the
status quo is left undisturbed; and (2) whether or not the appointment will imperil the
interest of others whose rights deserve as much a consideration from the court as those
of the person requesting for receivership. Moreover, this Court has consistently ruled
that where the effect of the appointment of a receiver is to take real estate out of the
possession of the defendant before the final adjudication of the rights of the parties, the
appointment should be made only in extreme cases.
Other Topic
Cagas vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 194139, January 24, 2012
The provision of Section 7, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution, although it confers on the Court
the power to review any decision, order or ruling of the COMELEC limits such power to a final
decision or resolution of the Comelec en banc, and does not extend to an interlocutory order
issued by a Division of the COMELEC. Otherwise stated, the Court has no power to review on
certiorari an interlocutory or even a final resolution issued by a Division of the COMELEC.
The provision of Section 7, Article IX of the 1987 constitution quoted (supra) is interpreted to
mean final orders, rulings and decisions of the COMELEC rendered in the exercise of its
adjucatory or quasi-judicial powers. This decision must be a final decision or resolution of the
COMELEC en banc, not of a division, certainly not an interlocutory order of division. The
Supreme Court has no power to review via certiorari, an interlocutory order or even a final
resolution of a Division of the Commission on Elections.