Professional Documents
Culture Documents
76-100 Civ Pro
76-100 Civ Pro
[82]
Ans: A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action or
proceeding prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a party or a court, agency,
or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts. (s1 r58)
83. May the RTC issue a writ of injunction against another RTC order or
judgment?[89] Explain.
Ans:
84. The residents of Dasmarinas Village, Makati city filed against the NAPOCOR
a complaint for damages with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction and/or temporary restraining order. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin
NAPOCOR from energizing and transmitting high voltage electric current through its
cables erected from sucat, Paranaque to araneta avenue, Quezon city. The plaintiffs
allege that NAPOCOR failed to comply with section 27 of the local government code
requiring prior consultation prior to the implementation of a government project and
that the electromagnetic fields are harmful to their health. They allege that unless the
restraining order is issued, grave and irreparable injury to their health would ensue.
NAPOCOR argues that the court is prohibited from issuing a temporary restraining
order and preliminary injunction against an infrastructure project by virtue of PD
1818. May the trial court issue a restraining order against NAPOCOR?[90]
Ans: Yes, While PD 1818 prohibits any court from issuing injunctions or restraining
orders in cases involving infrastructure projects, the prohibition extends only to the
issuance of injunctions in administrative acts in controversies involving facts or the
exercise of discretion in technical cases. The issues of whether there is a violation of
the plaintiffs constitutionally protected right to health under Section 15, Article II and
whether NAPOCOR had violated Section 27 of the Local Government Code are
questions of law which divest the case from the protective mantle of PD 1818.
(Hernandez v. National Power Corp.., G.R. 145328, 23 March 2006)
85. In a decision in civil no. 93-1000 which became final and executor, the RTC
of manila ( Branch 21) issued a writ of execution for its enforcement. The sheriff
levied upon certain chattels and scheduled the auction sale thereof. However,
Santamaria filed a third- party claim with the sheriff asserting that the chattels levied
upon by the latter belong to him and not to the judgment debtor. Because the
judgment obligee posted an indemnity bond in favor of the third-party claimant, the
sheriff refused to release the auction sale. Hence Santamaria filed with the RTC of
Bulacan ( branch 8) an action against the judgment obligee and the sheriff for the
recovery of the chattels and seeking to enjoin the auction sale. The RTC of Bulacan
in due course issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the sheriff from
proceeding with the auction sale. The judgment creditor and the sheriff filed a motion
to dismiss stating that Santamaria can no longer file a separate action since he had
already filed a third-party claim and that the auction sale cannot be enjoined since a
court cannot interfere with the judgment of a coordinate court. How should the
motion to dismiss be resolved?[91]
Ans: The motion to dismiss should be denied. Nothing contained in s16 r39 shall
prevent the third-party claimant from vindicating his claim to the property in a
separate action. (s16 r39). There is no interference with the processes of a
coordinate and co-equal court, since the sheriff was improperly implementing the
writ of execution. (Abiera v. Court of Appeals, 45 SCRA 314).
87. P, a Makati resident, filed a petition for prohibition with the RTC of Makati
seeking to enjoin the department of justice from proceeding with the preliminary
investigation of a syndicated estafa case against him. P applied for a writ of
preliminary injunction to restrain the DOJ from continuing with the preliminary
investigation. Upon the DOJ’s motion the RTC dismissed the petition on the ground
of improper venue saying that the case should have been filed in Manila which has
territorial jurisdiction over the Department of Justice at Padre Faura, Manila. A) Was
the dismissal proper?[93] B) What if P were a pasig resident. Would your answer be
the same?[94]
Ans: a. No the dismissal was not proper
b. If P were a Pasig City resident, my answer would not be the same. The
dismissal would then be proper.
89. What are the grounds for the issuance of preliminary injunction?[96]
Ans: A preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established that:
a. the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded
b. the commission, continuance or non-performance of the act or acts
complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the
applicant; or
c. A 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 judgment ineffectual.
90. Private respondent obtained a P3 million loan from petitioner union bank
secured by a real estate mortgage on their real property. Upon non-payment of the
loan, Petitioner extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage. A week before the expiration
of the redemption period, Private respondent filed an action for annulment of the
mortgage and foreclosure sale and for reconveyance with the prayer of temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the consoliditation of
title by petitioner. The private respondent forthwith registered a notice of lis pendens
on the property. Should the preliminary injunction be granted?[97]
Ans: No, consolidation of title by Petition and the issuance of a new title in its name
will not cause irreparable injury to the private respondent. This is because the
purchaser at the auction sale merely steps into the shoes of the judgment debtor or
mortgagor. Hence the consolidation and issuance of new title to petitioner will not
render ineffectual the judgment in the main case for reconveyance.
91. ABC cattle corporation is the holder of a pasture lease agreement since 1990
covering 1,000 hectares of pasture land surrounded with fences. In 1992, D was
issued a pasture lease agreement covering 930 hectares of land adjacent to ABC’s.
A relocation survey showed that the boundaries of D’s land extended 580 hectares
into ABC’s pasture land. Thereupon, D removed ABC’s fence and started to set up
his own boundary fence 580 hectares into ABC’s pasture area. As ABC persistently
blocked D’s advances into its property, D filed a complaint with preliminary injunction
to enjoin ABC from restricting him in the exercise of his lease rights. If you were the
judge, would you issue a preliminary injunction? Explain [98]
Ans: If I were the judge I would not issue a writ of preliminary injunction. The
Supreme Court has held that the purpose of preliminary injunction, whether
prohibitory or mandatory, is to maintain or restore the status quo or the last actual
peaceable uncontested status.
92. What are the requirements for the grant of a preliminary injunction or a
temporary restraining order?[99]
Ans: Verified Application, Bond, Notice of Raffle and Summary Hearing
93. Give an instance wherein the applicant may be exempted from the filing of an
injunction bond for the issuance of a preliminary injunction.[100]
Ans: In the case of a citizen suit under section 41 of the Clean Air Act of 1991. The
court shall exempt, upon a prima facie showing of the non-enforcement or violation
complained of, the plaintiff from filling an injunction bond for the issuance of a
preliminary injunction.
97. An application for a writ of preliminary injunction with a prayer for a temporary
restraining order is included in a complaint and filed in a multi-sala RTC consisting of
Branches 1, 2, 3 and 4. Being urgent in nature, the Executive Judge who was sitting
in Branch 1, upon the filing of the aforesaid application immediately raffled the case
in the presence of the judges of Branches 2, 3 and 4. The case was raffled to
Branch 4 and the judge thereof immediately issued a TRO. Is the TRO valid? [104]
Explain.
Ans: The temporary restraining order is not valid. When 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 multiple-sala court, shall be raffled only
after notice to and in the presence of the adverse party or the person to be enjoined.
100. P filed a complaint against B with the RTC of Iligan City. Alleging extreme
urgency, grave injustice, and irreparable damage, P applied ex parte with the
executive judge for the issuance of a 72-hour from issuance. The case was fortwith
raffled to Branch 256 of the RTC. On the 72nd hour and at the conclusion of the
summary hearing in which the parties were present, the RTC judge issued a TRO
effective 20 days from issuance. Was there any defect in the TRO issued?[107]
Explain.
Ans: Yes, a TRO’s validity should be for 20 days only, inclusive of the original 72
hours. Since the original 72 hours had lapsed, the TRO issued herein can be valid
for only 17 days.