ON PRELIMINARY MANDATORY INJUNCTION

I
To be entitled to an injunctive writ, petitioner must show, inter alia, the existence of a clear and unmistakable right and an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. 1 The SC held that in the absence of proof of a legal right and the injury sustained by the plaintiff, an order of the trial court granting the issuance of an injunctive writ will be set aside, for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion.

II
!"#$%S%T"S %n order that injunction may issue, two re&uisites must concur' (1) the existence of a right to be protected* and ( ) the facts against which the injunction is to be directed are violative of said right.
+

%njunction, like other e&uitable remedies, should be issued only at the instance of a suitor who has sufficient interest in or title to the right or the property sought to be protected. %t is proper only when the plaintiff appears to be entitled to the relief demanded in the complaint. %n particular, the existence of the right and the violation thereof must appear in the allegations of the complaint and must constitute at least a prima facie showing of a right to the final relief. Thus, there are two re&uisites conditions for the issuance of a preliminary injunction, namely, (1) the right to be protected exists prima facie* and ( ) the acts sought to be enjoined are violative of that right. %t must be proven that the violation sought to be prevented would cause an irreparable injustice. ,

III
-$!-.S"S %njunction is a preservative remedy for the protection of one/s substantive right or interest. %t is granted only when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious conse&uences which cannot be remedied under any standard compensation. %ts issuance rests upon the existence of an emergency or a special reason before the main case can be regularly heard. %t is for the party re&uesting an injunction to demonstrate clearly the presence of one or more of the grounds for its issuance. 0

1 2

1ilson .ng Ching 2%an Chuan vs. Court of 3ppeals and 4oren5o Tan, 6! 7o. 1+8+98, 3ugust 10, 881 :evelopers 6roup of Companies, %nc. vs. Court of 3ppeals, 1; SC!3 <10 (1;;+) cited in 1ilson .ng Ching 2%an Chuan vs. Court of 3ppeals and 4oren5o Tan, 6! 7o. 1+8+98, 3ugust 10, 881 3 "duardo Tan vs. =lorita >ueco and !olando >ueco, 6! 7o. 1,10,8, .ctober 9, 881, ?nares@Santiago, A. 4 4os Banos !ural Bank, %nc. vs. -acita .. 3frica, et.al. 6! 7.. 1,+;;,, Auly 11, 88 5 4oren5o -ascual, et.al. vs. Audge Cesar >. :umlao, et.al., 3.>. 7o. >TA@81@1+08, Auly 8, 881, >endo5a, A.

2
C%rreparable injury does not have reference to the amount of damages that may be caused but rather to the difficulty of measuring the damages inflicted.D 9 The sole objective of a writ of preliminary injunction is to preserve the status &uo until the merits of the case can be heard fully. < %njunction will not lie to take the property out of control of the party in possession.
E

3 doubtful title plus the fact that defendants were not in possession of the property prior to the filing of the instant complaint would militate against the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction in their favor. Fe who seeks the e&uitable relief of injunction must come with clean hands. 3 litigant maybe denied relief by a court of e&uity on the ground that his conduct has been ine&uitable, unfair, honest, fraudulent or deceitful as to the controversy in issue. ; %t is a basic procedural postulate that a preliminary injunction is not proper where its purpose is to take the property out of control or possession of one party and transfer the same to the hands of another who did not have such control at the inception of the case and whose title has not been clearly established by law. 18 %njunction contemplates acts being committed or about to be committed, hence injunction does not lie against acts already consummated. 11 7.T"' %njunction as a principal action.
1

C%njunction is a preservative remedy for the protection of one/s substantive right or interest. %t is granted only when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious conse&uences which cannot be remedied under any standard compensation. %ts issuance rests upon the existence of an emergency or a special reason before the main case can be regularly heard. %t is for the party re&uesting an injunction to demonstrate clearly the presence of one or more of the grounds for its issuance.D 1+ C%t is a basic procedural postulate that a preliminary injunction is not proper where its purpose is to take the property out of control or possession of one party and transfer the same to the hands of another who did not have such control at the inception of the case and whose title has not been clearly established by law.D 1, 3 doubtful title plus the fact that defendants were not in possession of the property prior to the filing of the instant complaint would militate against the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction in their favor. CFe who seeks the e&uitable relief of injunction must come with clean hands. 3 litigant maybe denied relief by a court of e&uity on the ground that his conduct has been ine&uitable, unfair, honest, fraudulent or deceitful as to the controversy in issue.D 10

6 7

%bid. Feirs of Aoa&uin 3suncion vs, 6ervacio, Ar. +8, SC!3 + 8 S G 6 6aisano %ncorporated vs. Fidalgo, 1; SC!3 , 9 -ilapil vs. 6architorena, ;; SC!3 +,+ 10 .rtane5@"nderes vs. Court of 3ppeals, + 1 SC!3 H<E 11 !omulo vs. %nigue5, 6! 7o. <1;8E, =ebruary ,, 1;E9 12 See -lacido .. $rbanes, Ar. vs. Court of 3ppeals, et.al. 6! 7o. 11<;9,, >arch E, 881 13 4oren5o -ascual, et.al. vs. Audge Cesar >. :umlao, et.al., 3.>. 7o. >TA@81@1+08, Auly 8, 881, >endo5a, A. 14 .rtane5@"nderes vs. Court of 3ppeals, + 1 SC!3 H<E. 15 -ilapil vs. 6architorena, ;; SC!3 +,+.

3
3n injunction to stay a final and executory decision is unavailing, except only after showing that facts and circumstances exist which would render execution unjust or ine&uitable, or that a change in the situation of the parties occurred. 19

IV
-etitioner submits that the only issue brought before the C3 for resolution on certiorari is the validity of the order granting the writ of preliminary mandatory injun tion . -etitioner asserts that respondent court had no jurisdiction over the facts allegedly occurring after the filing of the petition. 1e found the same reasoning to be unmeritorious in Aoy >art Consolidated Corp. vs. Court of 3ppeals. 1< 1e ruled therein that the propriety of the writ is an issue inseparable from the issue of whether, in view of developments and circumstances occurring after the issuance of the injunction, the writ should be maintained or not. Fence, the C3 was acting well within its jurisdiction when it considered the supervening circumstances that prompted it to lift the writ of preliminary mandatory injun tion and order the restoration of the disputed property to private respondents. There is likewise no merit in the contention that respondent court had already ruled upon the merits of the case, thereby pre@empting the !TC in its review of the judgment of the >TC. !espondent courtIs ruling should be understood to be restricted to the propriety of the issuance and maintenance of the writ of preliminary mandatory injun tion . 3s private respondents point out, the challenged writ was merely preliminary. %ts lifting in no way precluded the !TC from subse&uently issuing a permanent mandatory injunction ordering the return of the property to petitioner at the culmination of the proceedings should the circumstances so warrant. =inally, petitioner argues that respondent court erred in applying e&uity as basis for the modification of its decision since e&uity is appropriate only in the absence of legal remedies. 3n examination of the resolution of the Court of 3ppeals modifying its decision reveals, however, that e&uity was not the only ground, but merely one of the grounds, the C3 took into account in reconsidering its earlier decision. %t appears from the same resolution that the primary consideration for the modification of the decision is that the purpose for the preliminary mandatory injun tion had been accomplished. %n any case, injunction has been described as an Je&uitable relief.J 1E 3ccordingly, the reasons for its issuance and its lifting must necessarily rest ultimately on e&uity. The C3, in ordering the restoration of the property to private respondents, therefore, did not err in considering that Jit will be the Kprivate respondentsL who will suffer damages resulting from the continued deterioration of the fishpond.J 1;

V
!ule 0E of the !ules of Court provides for both preliminary and permanent injunction. 3 preliminary injunction is defined in Section 1 thereof as' J(3)n order granted at any stage of an action prior to the judgment or final order, re&uiring a party or a court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts.J .n the other hand, Section ; of the same rule defines a permanent injunction in this wise' Jx x x. %f after the trial of the action it appears that the applicant is entitled to have the act or acts complained of permanently enjoined, the court shall grant a final injunction perpetually
16

-hilippine Sinter Corporation vs. Cagayan "lectric -ower and 4ight Co., %nc., 6.!. 7o. 1 <+<1 0 3pril 88 17 8; SC!3 <+E (1;; ) 18 See -ilapil vs. 6architorena, ;; SC!3 +,+ (1;;E) 19 :.>%73:.! :" 6$M>37, petitioner, vs. TF" F.7.!3B4" C.$!T .= 3--"34S, and the spouses !.437:. 6. -"!"M and >%436!.S N. -"!"M, respondents., 6.!. 7o. 1 +<EE, 881 >ar 0, 1st :ivision

4
restraining the party or person enjoined from the commission or continuance of the act or acts or confirming the preliminary mandatory injun tion.J By their very definitions, the action for injunction is distinct from the ancillary remedy of preliminary injunction which cannot exist except only as part or an incident of an independent action or proceeding. 3s a matter of course, in an action for injunction, the auxiliary remedy of preliminary injunction, whether prohibitory or mandatory, may issue. $nder the present state of the law, the main action of injunction seeks a judgment embodying a final injunction which is distinct from, and should not be confused with the provisional remedy of preliminary injunction, the sole object of which is to preserve the status &uo until the merits can be heard. 8 3 writ of preliminary injunction is generally based solely on initial and incomplete evidence. The evidence submitted during the hearing on an application for a writ of preliminary injunction is not conclusive or complete for only a JsamplingJ is needed to give the trial court an idea of the justification for the preliminary injunction pending the decision of the case on the merits. 1 3s such, the findings of fact and opinion of a court when issuing the writ of preliminary injunction are interlocutory in nature and made even before the trial on the merits is commenced or terminated. There are vital facts that have yet to be presented during the trial which may not be obtained or presented during the hearing on the application for the injunctive writ. The trial court needs to conduct substantial proceedings in order to put the main controversy to rest. %t does not necessarily proceed that when a writ of preliminary injunction is issued, a final injunction will follow. + %n this case, however, the Court of 3ppeals dismissed the main action for damages and injunction after evaluating the incomplete and selective evidence presented during the hearing held for the ancillary remedy of preliminary injunction, notwithstanding that there still remained for the resolution of the trial court the issue of whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the damages prayed for as well as the final injunction. %n disposing of the petition for certiorari, the Court of 3ppeals did not limit itself to determining that the said writ of preliminary injunction was issued by the trial court with grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction. %t overstepped its boundaries when it dismissed the main action for damages and injunction. %n fine, the judgment in a certiorari proceeding &uestioning an interlocutory matter was used to finally determine a main case which was still awaiting trial. =urthermore, the Court of 3ppeals delved into the facts and merits of the main case despite the well@established rule that certiorari cannot be raised to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law. , %n justifying the dismissal of the main action pending before the trial court, the Court of 3ppeals necessarily ruled that the trial court made errors in judgment, but such errors are reviewable only by an appeal, 0 since &uestions of fact are beyond the scope of a petition for certiorari. 9 %n a corollary case where the Court of 3ppeals affirmed the trial court/s judgment on the merits of a case, even when what was elevated before the said appellate court was only the propriety of the issuance of the writ of execution of the judgment of the trial court, the Supreme Court ruled that the Court of 3ppeals acted ultra jurisdictio. %t was held that' KTLhe authority of the respondent appellate court was confined only to ruling upon the issue of whether the !egional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order directing the issuance of a writ of execution against petitioner. 1hether the trial court committed a
20 21

>anila Banking Corporation v. Court of 3ppeals, 1E< SC!3 1+E (1;;E) .lalia v. Fi5on, 1;9 SC!3 990 (1;;1) 22 Sto. Tomas $niversity Fospital v. Surla, ;, SC!3 +E (1;;E) 23 4a Nista 3sso., %nc. v. Court of 3ppeals, <E SC!3 ,;E (1;;<) 24 B= Corp. v. Court of 3ppeals, EE SC!3 9< (1;;E)* 7ational =ed. of 4abor v. 74!C, E+ SC!3 <0 (1;;<)* Building Care Corp. v. 74!C, 9E SC!3 999 (1;;<) 25 =ortich v. Corona, E; SC!3 9 , (1;;E) 26 -hilippine Tuberculosis Society, %nc. v. 7ational 4abor $nion, ;, SC!3 09< (1;;E)* -remiere :evelopment Bank v. 74!C, ;+ SC!3 ,; (1;;E)* Aamer v. 74!C, <E SC!3 9+ (1;;<)

5
mistake in deciding the case on the merits is an issue way beyond the competence of respondent appellate court to pass upon in a certiorari proceeding. < %n like manner, we find that the Court of 3ppeals exceeded its jurisdiction when it decided the main case for damages and injunction even when what was elevated before it was the &uestion of propriety of the issuance of the ancillary writ of preliminary injunction. The trial court did not commit any act that was diametrically opposed to the time@honored legal principles. The issuance of the &uestioned writ of preliminary injunction was well@supported by sufficient evidence presented by the petitioner during the hearing held for that purpose. The trial court/s evaluation of the evidence presented by both contending parties led the said court to hold that justice and e&uity would be better served if the status &uo is preserved until a final determination of the merits of the pending case for damages and injunction is laid down. 1e find nothing whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious in the trial court/s ruling. %n the exercise of its discretion, the trial court found all the re&uisites for the issuance of an injunctive writ to be attendant. =irst, the court@approved compromise agreement in Civil Case 7o. <<;E established that C3T34%73 will continue to provide security services to the SSS until such time that a new public bidding is actually conducted and a valid award is made, giving the petitioner a clear and unmistakable right. Second, the invasion of the petitioner/s right was material and substantial in that the SSS has attempted to oust C3T34%73 from rendering such services within the SSS premises by awarding the contract to A36$3! despite C3T34%73/s protests that the public bidding was fraught with anomalies. Third, and last, there was an urgent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage to C3T34%73 while the main case was still pending. 1hile private respondents may have presented evidence to rebut C3T34%73/s assertions, these will be better assessed and considered in the trial proper. Besides, the assailed injunctive writ was not a judgment on the merits of the case. 3part from reversing the trial court/s findings and conclusions of fact, the Court of 3ppeals also ruled that the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction. 6rave abuse of discretion in the issuance of writs implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment that is e&uivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice or personal aversion amounting to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act at all in contemplation of law. E Thus, for the extraordinary writ of certiorari to lie, there must be capricious, arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power. ; Clearly, the Court of 3ppeals erred in interfering with the trial court/s exercise of discretion when the former went over the preliminary evidence with a fine@toothed comb. The rule is well@ entrenched that the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction as an ancillary or preventive remedy to secure the right of a party in a pending case rests upon the sound discretion of the trial court. !ule 0E, Section < of the !ules of Court gives generous latitude to the trial courts in this regard for the reason that conflicting claims in an application for a provisional writ more often than not involve a factual determination which is not the function of the appellate courts. Fence, the exercise of sound judicial discretion by the trial court in injunctive matters must not be interfered with except when there is manifest abuse. +8 Significantly, the SSS and -B3C were given their day in court to oppose petitioner/s application for the ancillary writ. %n this connection, we have consistently held that there is no grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction where a party was not deprived of its day in court, as it was heard and had exhaustively presented all its arguments and
27 28

Chua v. Court of 3ppeals, <1 SC!3 0,9 (1;;<) Cuison v. Court of 3ppeals, E; SC!3 10; (1;;E)* "sguerra v. Court of 3ppeals, 9< SC!3 +E8 (1;;E) 29 4alican v. Nergara, <9 SC!3 01E (1;;<) 30 Saulog v. Court of 3ppeals, 9 SC!3 01 (1;;9)* Searth Commodities Corp. v. Court of 3ppeals, 8< SC!3 9 (1;; )* S G 3 6aisano, %nc. v. Audge Fidalgo, 1; SC!3 , (1;;8)

6
defenses. +1 There is no denying that private respondents, along with herein petitioner, were given ample time and opportunity to present their respective evidence as well as arguments in support of their opposing positions. Conse&uently, the trial court committed no grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction. %t was the Court of 3ppeals that committed reversible error in concluding otherwise.+ =inally, the Court of 3ppeals erred in dismissing the main case pending before the trial court. "ven assuming for the moment that grave abuse of discretion attended the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction, only the said writ could be nullified, and the respondent appellate court would still be overstepping the bounds of its jurisdiction and authority by dismissing the main case before the same could be heard by the trial court. ++

VI
>ain %ssue' 1rit of -reliminary >andatory and -rohibitory %njunction 3 writ of preliminary injunction is issued only upon proof of the following' (1) a clear legal rightof the complainant, ( ) a violation of that right, and (+) a permanent and urgent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. +, $nlike an ordinary preliminary injunction which is a preservative remedy, a writ of preliminary mandatory injun tion re&uires the performance of a particular act that tends to go beyond maintaining the status &uo and is thus more cautiously regarded +0 Fence, the applicant must prove the existence of a right that is Cclear and unmistakable.D +9 %n the present case, petitioners have failed to show that they have a clear and unmistakable right which has been violated. 7either have they shown permanent and urgent necessity for the issuance of the writ. Clear and $nmistakable !ight -etitioners contend that they have a clear and unmistakable right to be enrolled in the Cebu %nternational School. 1e disagree. The right to enroll in a private school is not absolute* it is subject to Cfair, reasonable and e&uitable re&uirements.D +< %n this case, petitioners have the right or standing to pray for the issuance of an injunctive writ, because they failed to pay the re&uired school fees on time, that is, upon the enrollment of >onica Claire and =rances 4orraine Crystal. %nstead of paying in cash or manager/s check as re&uired by respondent school, 6lynna Crystal, mother of the two girls, used personal checks in the total amount of -+0,1E<. The cashier of respondent school, complying with the school policy regarding the payment of tuition fees, refused to accept these personal checks.
31 32

Santos v. Court of 3ppeals, 1, SC!3 19 (1;; ) Nan Twest v. Court of 3ppeals, +8 SC!3 , (1;;,) 33 -43C%:. .. $!B37"S, A!., petitioner, vs. C.$!T .= 3--"34S, S.C%34 S"C$!%T? S?ST">, F"CT.! B. %7:$CT%N., in his capacity as Chairman of the -urchase and Bidding Committee, 6.:.=!":. S. S%S.7, %S3B"4. %. 4%SC37., 3$!.!3 ".4. .!T"63, S$S373 2. %7C%.76, ":63! B. S.4%43-S% and C"C%4%3 C. C3743S, as >embers, respondents., 6.!. 7o. 11<;9,, 881 >ar E, 1st :ivision 34 -rosperity Credit !esources, %nc. v. C3, +81 SC!3 0 , Aanuary 10, 1;;;, citing -elejo v. C3, 11< SC!3 990, .ctober 1E, 1;E 35 %d., citing >anila "lectric !ailroad and 4ight Company v. :el !osario, -hil. ,++, >arch ;, 1;1 * and Bautista v. Barcelona, 188 -hil. 18<E, >arch ;, 1;0< 36 SB>3 v. $niversal %nternational 6roup of Taiwan, 6! 7o. 1+19E8, September 1,, 888, per -anganiban, A. 37 Section 0 (+), 3rticle O%N of the 1;E< Constitution, provides' C"very citi5en has a right to select a profession or course of study, subject to fair, reasonable, and e&uitable admission and academic re&uirements.D

7
>oreover, the past credit history of petitioners did not help them in this instance. 7ot only had their personal checks bounced several times in the past, but these had been postdated as well* sometimes they were not even encashed upon petitioners/ advice. %n the present case, by the time the amount was consigned to court, the enrollment period had lapsed, resulting in >onica Claire and =rances 4orraine/s non@admission to respondent school. Fence, when they filed the case, they were no longer students in good standing. 7o $rgent and -ermanent 7ecessity "ven assuming that petitioners have clear and unmistakable legal right, they are still not entitled to a writ of preliminary mandatory injun tion . They have not shown any urgent and permanent necessity for it, considering that >onica Claire and =rances 4orraine are already enrolled at the Colegio de %mmaculada Concepcion. %n other words, there is no more need for the issuance of a writ of mandatory injunction to compel the school to admit them. +E

VII
C3!T. 0+;. "very possessor has a right to be respected in his possession* and should he be disturbed therein he shall be protected in or restored to said possession by the means established by the laws and the !ules of Court. C3 possessor deprived of his possession through forcible entry may within ten days from the filing of the complaint present a motion to secure from the competent court, in the action for forcible entry, a writ of preliminary mandatory injun tion to restore him in his possession. The court shall decide the motion within thirty (+8) days from filing thereof.D

VIII
%t is a long settled rule +; that for a writ of preliminary mandatory injun tion to issue, the following re&uisites must be present' (1) that the complainant has a clear legal right* ( ) that his right has been violated and the invasion is material and substantial* and (+) there is an urgent and permanent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. "&ually settled ,8 is that, as a rule, injunction will not be granted to take property out of the possession or control of one party and place it into that of another whose title has not clearly been established by law. ,1

I!
>oreover, as correctly observed by the .C3, in an action for forcible entry, parties are entitled to the provisional remedy of preliminary injunction. 3 preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of court actions or proceedings prior to the judgment or final order, re&uiring a party or a court, an agency or a person to refrain from doing a particular act or acts. , %t may also re&uire the performance of a particular act or acts, in
38

S-S. N%!6%4%. 37: 64?773 =. C!?ST34, acting for themselves and as parents of minor children >.7%C3 C43%!" C!?ST34 and =!37C"S 4.!!3%7"K1L C!?ST34, petitioners, vs. C"B$ %7T"!73T%.734 SCF..4, F"!B"!T B$.T, ST"-F"7 -3!3:%"S, TF" B.3!: .= T!$ST""S .= C"B$ %7T"!73T%.734 SCF..4, 37: Superintendent 4$M %S.B34, respondents., 6.!. 7o. 1+0,++, 881 3pr ,, +rd :ivision 39 -rosperity Credit !ecourse, %nc. vs. Court of 3ppeals, +81 SC!3 0 (1;;;)* :elijo vs. Court of 3ppeals, 11< SC!3 990 (1;E )* !ivera vs. =lorendo, 1,, SC!3 9,+ (1;E9)* >anila "lectric !ailroad G 4ight Co. vs. :el !osario, -hil. ,++ (1;1 )* "usebio vs. 3guas, ,< -hil. 09< (1; 0) 40 Feirs of Aoa&uin 3suncion vs. 6ervacio, Ar., +8, SC!3 + (1;;;)* S G 3 6aisano %ncorporated vs. Fidalgo. 1; SC!3 , (1;;8)* !odulfa vs. 3lfonso, <9 -hil. 0 (1;,9)* etc. 41 -3CS-.!TS -F%4S., %7C., petitioner, vs. 7%CC.4. S-.!TS, %7C., respondent., 6.!. 7o. 1,198 , 881 7ov , +rd :ivision 42 P1 of !ule 0E of the !ules of Court

8
which case it is known as a preliminary mandatory injun tion . ,+ Since this remedy is granted prior to the judgment or final order, we agree with both the .C3 and respondent that the prayer for preliminary injunction should first be resolved before the main case of forcible entry is decided. Fowever, respondent should have resolved the >otion for -reliminary %njunction within +8 days from its filing. There can be no mistaking the clear command of Section 10 of !ule <8 of the !ules of Court, which reads' CSec. 10. -reliminary injunction @@ The court may grant preliminary injunction, in accordance with the provisions of !ule 0E hereof, to prevent the defendant from committing further acts of dispossession against the plaintiff. C3 possessor deprived of his possession through forcible entry or unlawful detainer may, within five (0) days from the filing of the complaint, present a motion in the action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injun tion to restore him in his possession. The court shall decide the motion within thirty (+8) days from the filing thereof.D (%talics ours) ,,

!
%ndeed, under the rules, a writ of preliminary mandatory injun tion ex parte could be issued without it being necessarily conditioned on prior notice and hearing. ,0 1here the delay would prevent an effective relief or might result in serious damage, hearing could justifiably be dispensed with, ,9 although, as a matter of course, such a rule, considering the peremptory nature of the extraordinary remedy, must be strictly and restrictively applied. ,< ,E

!I
The grant or denial of a prayer for preliminary injunction lies in the sound discretion of the issuing court. ,; %t is not intended to correct a wrong done in the past, in the sense of redress for injury already sustained, but to prevent further injury. 08 The purpose of a preliminary injunction was clearly discussed in Capitol >edical Center v. Court of 3ppeals, 01 from which we &uote' CThe sole object of a preliminary injunction, whether prohibitory or mandatory, is to preserve the status &uo until the merits of the case can be heard. The status &uo is the last actual peaceable uncontested status which preceded the controversy (!odulfa vs. 3lfonso, <9 -hil. 0). %t may only be resorted to by a litigant for the preservation or protection of his rights or interests and for no other purpose during the pendency of the principal action (Calo vs. !oldan, <9 -hil. ,,0). %t should

43 44

%bid %>"4:3 ?. >3:"!3:3, complainant, vs. Audge "!7"ST. F. >":%.:"3, 1 th >unicipal Circuit Trial Court, Cabatuan and >aasin, %loilo, respondent., 3.>. 7o. >TA@8 @1,0;, 88+ .ct 1,, +rd :ivision 45 Tay Chun Suy v. C3, 6.!. 7o. ;188,@80, 8 3ugust 1;; , 1 SC!3 <1+ 46 .rtigas G Co., 4td. -artnership v. Audge !ui5, 6.!. 7o. ++;0 , 8; >arch 1;E<, 1,E SC!3 + 9 47 Belisle %nvestment G =inance Co., %nc. v. State %nvestment Fouse, %nc., 6.!. 7o. <1;1<, +8 Aune 1;E<, 101 SC!3 9+8 48 N"!7"TT" $>34%@-3C., B"!73!:%7. :. 76, .!437:. F. F3B%T37 and A.S"-F%7" =. 37:!3:3, complainants, vs. !"%73T. 6. #$%4343, sued in his capacity as the -residing Audge of the !egional Trial Court @ Branch 0<, >akati City, 3%:3 C. 4.>$6:376, officer@in@charge and 4%4%3 7. B3T$, Court Stenographer of the same Branch, respondents., 3.>. 7o. !TA@8 @19;;, 88+ .ct 10, 1st :ivision 49 Aao G Co., %nc. v. C3, + 1 -hil. <90, :ecember 1;, 1;;0* 3vila v. Tapucar, 81 SC!3 1,E, 3ugust <, 1;;1* Belisle %nvestment G =inance Co., %nc. v. State %nvestment Fouse, %nc., 101 SC!3 9+8, Aune +8, 1;E< 50 -aramount %nsurance Corp. v. C3 G :agupan "lectric Corp., +18 SC!3 +<<, Auly 1;, 1;;; (citing 4aureta, Comments and Aurisprudence of %njunction K1;E;L, p. 9* and Tree v. 4arson, E, %owa 9,;, 0, 71 1<;, +0 3m S.!. ++9 51 1<E SC!3 ,;+, .ctober 1+, 1;E;

9
only be granted if the party asking for it is clearly entitled thereto (Climaco vs. >acaraeg, , SC!3 ;+8* Subido vs. 6opengco, < SC!3 ,00* -olice Commission vs. Bello, +< SC!3 +8).D 0 0+

!II
3s held in -elejo v. Court of 3ppeals, 11< SC!3 990, 99E, .ctober 1E, 1;E , the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injun tion is justified only when the following are shown' 1) the complainant has a clear legal right* ) that right has been violated and the invasion is material and substantial* and +) there is an urgent and permanent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. See also Spouses Crystal v. Cebu %nternational School, +09 SCT3 ;9, +80, 3pril ,, 881* Feirs of 3suncion v. 6ervacio Ar., +9+ -hil. 999, 9<,, >arch ;, 1;;;* Suico %ndustrial Corporation v. C3, +91 -hil. 198, 19;@1<8, Aanuary 8, 1;;; (citing 3rcega v. C3, +,1 -hil. 199, 1<1, Auly <, 1;;<).

!III
$nder Section 1 of !ule 0E of the !ules of Court, preliminary injunction is defined as Can order granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order, re&uiring a party or a court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts. %t may also re&uire the performance of a particular act or acts, in which case it shall be known as a preliminary mandatory injun tion.D ("mphasis supplied.) See >iriam College =oundation %nc. v. C3, +,E SC!3 90, <<, :ecember 10, 888* Spouses 4ope5 v. C3, +<; -hil. <,+, <,;@<08, Aanuary 8, 888* -aramount %nsurance Corporation v. C3, +9; -hil. 9,1, 9,E, Auly 1;, 1;;;.

!IV
%t must be noted that complainants/ petition was not merely for the ordinary writ of preliminary injunction but for a writ of preliminary mandatory injun tion . $nlike an ordinary preliminary injunction which is a preservative remedy, a writ of preliminary mandatory injun tion re&uires the performance of a particular act that tends to go beyond maintaining the status &uo and is thus more cautiously regarded. 0, 3ccordingly, the issuance of the writ is justified only in a clear case, free from doubt or dispute. 00 The period to study its propriety in the circumstances was, however, interrupted when complainants filed their motion for oral arguments, and by the succeeding incidents where comments were re&uired and filed and by the inhibition of Austice Brawner. 09

52
53

%d., p. 08+, per 6riQo@3&uino, A. $7%T": C.C.7$T -437T"!S B372, versus $7%T": 344.? -F%4%--%7"S C.!-.!3T%.7, !espondent., 6.!. 7o. 10 +E, 880 Aan E, +rd :ivision 54 Crystal v. Cebu %nternational School, 6.!. 1+0,++ 3pril ,, 881, +09 SC!3 ;9, +80 55 Subic Bay >etropolitan 3uthority v. $niversal %nternational 6roup of Taiwan, 6. !. 7o. 1+19E8, September 1,, 888, +,8 SC!3 +0;, +<0 56 3!%"4 3N%443, 1%4B"!T :%N%73, =3%TF "4".7.! =3B%., A"77? :"43 C!$M, !37:? >.!3T3443, "4%S". N. B"!734"S, A.377" "7!%#$"M, C!%S.ST.>. 4.$B3C, 37: !%C3!:. :34>3C%3, C.>-43%737TS, N"!S$S A$ST%C" 37:!"S B. !"?"S, A!., (3SS.C%3T" A$ST%C" .= TF" C.$!T .= 3--"34S), !"S-.7:"7T., 3.>. 7o. 81@+,@C3@A, 889 Aan +, "n Banc)