October 11, 2017

G.R. No. 207938

EVY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner
vs.
VALIANT ROLL FORMING SALES CORPORATION, Respondent
DECISION
LEONEN, J.:
In every application for provisional injunctive relief, the applicant must establish
the actual and existing right sought to be protected. The applicant must also
establish the urgency of a writ's issuance to prevent grave and irreparable injury.
Failure to do so will warrant the court's denial of the application. Moreover, the
application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction may be denied in
the same summary hearing as the application for the issuance of the temporary
restraining order if the applicant fails to establish requisites for the entitlement of
the writ.
Injury is considered irreparable if "there is no standard by which [its] amount can
be measured with reasonable accuracy." The injury must be such that its pecuniary
value cannot be estimated, and thus, cannot fairly compensate for the loss. For this
reason, the loss of goodwill and business reputation, being unquantifiable, would
be considered as grave and irreparable damage.
October 4, 2017
G.R. No. 214073
BICOL MEDICAL CENTER, represented by Dr. Efren SJ. Nerva, and the
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, represented by HEALTH SECRETARY
ENRIQUE T. ONA, Petitioners
vs.
NOE B. BOTOR, CELJUN F. YAP, ISMAEL A. ALBAO, AUGUSTO S.
QUILON, EDGAR F. ESPLANA II, and JOSEFINA F. ESPLANA, Respondents
Spouses Nisce v. Equitable PCI Bank68 then discussed the requisites and the proof
required for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction:
The plaintiff praying for a writ of preliminary injunction must further establish that
he or she has a present and unmistakable right to be protected; that the facts against
which injunction is directed violate such right; and there is a special and paramount
necessity for the writ to prevent serious damages. In the absence of proof of a legal
right and the injury sustained by the plaintiff, an order for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction will be nullified. Thus, where the plaintiff's right is doubtful
or disputed, a preliminary injunction is not proper. The possibility of irreparable
damage without proof of an actual existing right is not a ground for a preliminary
injunction.
However, to establish the essential requisites for a preliminary injunction, the
evidence to be submitted by the plaintiff need not be conclusive and complete. The
plaintiffs arc only required to show that they have an ostensible right to the final
relief prayed for in their complaint. A writ of preliminary i11iunction is generally
based solely on initial or incomplete evidence. Such evidence need only be a
sampling intended merely to give the court an evidence of justification for a
preliminary injunction pending the decision on the merits of the case, and is not
conclusive of the principal action which has yet to be decided.69

G.R. No. 218236, February 07, 2018

SUMIFRU (PHILIPPINES) CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES DANILO
CEREÑO AND CERINA CEREÑO, Respondents.
The Ruling of the Court
Section 1, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court defines a preliminary injunction as an
order granted at any stage of an action prior to the judgment or final order
requiring a party, court, agency, or person to refrain from a particular act or acts. It
may also require the performance of a particular act or acts, in which case it shall
be known as a preliminary mandatory injunction. Section 3 of the same Rule
provides the grounds for the issuance of a preliminary injunction:
SEC. 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction. - A preliminary injunction
may be granted when it is established:
(a) That the applicant is entitled to the 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;
(b) That 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) That 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.
Thus, the following requisites must be proved before a writ of preliminary
injunction, whether mandatory or prohibitory, will be issued: (1) the applicant must
have a clear and unmistakable right to be protected, that is a right in esse; (2) there
is a material and substantial invasion of such right; (3) there is an urgent need for
the writ to prevent irreparable injury to the applicant; and (4) no other ordinary,
speedy, and adequate remedy exists to prevent the infliction of irreparable
injury.17
A writ of preliminary injunction, being an extraordinary event, one deemed as a
strong arm of equity or a transcendent remedy, must be granted only in the face of
injury to actual and existing substantial rights.18 A right to be protected by
injunction means a right clearly founded on or granted by law or is enforceable as a
matter of law.19 An injunction is not a remedy to protect or enforce contingent,
abstract, or future rights; it will not issue to protect a right not in esse, and which
may never arise, or to restrain an act which does not give rise to a cause of
action.20 When the complainant's right is doubtful or disputed, he does not have a
clear legal right and, therefore, injunction is not proper.21 While it is not required
that the right claimed by the applicant, as basis for seeking injunctive relief, be
conclusively established, it is still necessary to show, at least tentatively, that the
right exists and is not vitiated by any substantial challenge or contradiction.22
G.R. No. 175284 September 19, 2012
BP PHILIPPINES, INC. (FORMERLY BURMAH CASTROL PHILIPPINES,
INC.), Petitioner,
vs.
CLARK TRADING CORPORATION, Respondent.
Upon the satisfaction of two requisites, namely: (1) the existence of a right to be
protected; and (2) acts which are violative of said right. In the absence of a clear
legal right, the issuance of the injunctive relief constitutes grave abuse of
discretion. Injunction is not designed to protect contingent or future rights. Where
the complainant’s right is doubtful or disputed, injunction is not proper. The
possibility of irreparable damage without proof of actual existing right is not a
ground for an injunction.31
Respondent not being able to prove and establish the existence of a clear and actual
right that ought to be protected, injunction cannot issue as a matter of course.
Consequently, the Court does not find any ground for the award of damages.
Is an injunction a cause of action?
Regardless of the form sought, “an injunction is not itself a cause of action;
rather, a cause of action must exist on which injunctive relief may be granted.”
(Camp v. Board of Supervisors, 123 Cal. App. ... Permanent injunctive relief can
only be obtained in equitable actions.
Can there be a main case for preliminary injunction?
Finally, a preliminary injunction is merely a provisional remedy, an adjunct to
the main case subject to the latter's outcome, the sole objective of which is to
preserve the status quo until the trial court hears fully the merits of the case.