RULE 58

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

NELSON JENOSA et al. vs. REV. FR. JOSE RENE C. DELARIARTE, O.S.A. et al.
G.R. No. 172138, September 8, 2010

FACTS:

Petitioners are and some of the students (and their parents) of the University who were caught engaging
in hazing outside the school premises.

Dialogues and consultations were conducted among the school authorities, the apprehended students and
their parents. During the 28 November 2002 meeting, the parties agreed that, instead of the possibility of
being charged and found guilty of hazing, the students who participated in the hazing incident as
initiators, including petitioner students, would just transfer to another school, while those who
participated as neophytes would be suspended for one month. The parents of the apprehended students,
including petitioners, affixed their signatures to the minutes of the meeting to signify their conformity.5
In view of the agreement, the University did not anymore convene the Committee on Student Discipline
(COSD) to investigate the hazing incident.

On 3 January 2003, petitioners filed a complaint for injunction and damages. Petitioners assailed the
Principal’s decision to order the immediate transfer of petitioner students as a violation of their right to
due process because the COSD was not convened.

ISSUE:

Whether or not, injunction may be issued to enjoined an act previously agreed upon between the applicant
and the party against whom the injunction is sought to be issued.

HELD:

The answer is no. Since injunction is the strong arm of equity, he who must apply for it must come with
equity or with clean hands. This is so because among the maxims of equity are (1) he who seeks equity
must do equity, and (2) he who comes into equity must come with clean hands. The latter is a frequently
stated maxim which is also expressed in the principle that he who has done inequity shall not have equity.
It signifies that a litigant may be denied relief by a court of equity on the ground that his conduct has been
inequitable, unfair and dishonest, or fraudulent, or deceitful as to the controversy in issue.

Here, petitioners, having reneged on their agreement without any justifiable reason, come to court with
unclean hands. This Court may deny a litigant relief if his conduct has been inequitable, unfair and
dishonest as to the controversy in issue.
 SOLID BUILDERS, INC. and MEDINA FOODS INDUSTRIES, INC. vs. CHINA BANKING
CORPORATION (CBC) G.R. No. 179665, April 3, 2013

FACTS:

CBC granted several loans to Solid Builders (SBI). To secure the loans, Medina Foods (MFII) executed
in CBC’s favor several surety agreements and contracts of real estate mortgage over parcels of land.

On October 5, 2000, claiming that the interests, penalties and charges imposed by CBC were iniquitous
and unconscionable and to enjoin CBC from initiating foreclosure proceedings, SBI and MFII filed a
Complaint "To Compel Execution of Contract and for Performance and Damages, With Prayer for Writ
of Preliminary Injunction and Ex-Parte Temporary Restraining Order." Trial Court issued an order
granting the application for writ of preliminary injunction.

Aggrieved, CBC filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals where it claimed that the
issuance of writ of preliminary injunction were all issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction. CA ruled in favor of CBC and held that the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction had no basis as there were no findings of fact or law which would indicate the existence of any
of the requisites for the grant of an injunctive writ. SBI and MFII filed a motion for reconsideration but it
was denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated September 18, 2007. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a preliminary injunction may be issued to enjoin a creditor from foreclosing the
mortgaged property.

HELD:

The answer is in the negative. A writ of preliminary injunction is an extraordinary event which must be
granted only in the face of actual and existing substantial rights. The duty of the court taking cognizance
of a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction is to determine whether the requisites necessary for the
grant of an injunction are present in the case before it. In this connection, a writ of preliminary injunction
is issued to preserve the status quo ante, upon the applicant’s showing of two important requisite
conditions, namely: (1) the right to be protected exists prima facie, and (2) the acts sought to be enjoined
are violative of that right. It must be proven that the violation sought to be prevented would cause an
irreparable injury

An injury is considered irreparable if it is of such constant and frequent recurrence that no fair or
reasonable redress can be had therefor in a court of law, or where there is no standard by which their
amount can be measured with reasonable accuracy, that is, it is not susceptible of mathematical
computation. The provisional remedy of preliminary injunction may only be resorted to when there is a
pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences which cannot be remedied under any standard of
compensation.

In the first place, any injury that SBI and MFII may suffer in case of foreclosure of the mortgaged
properties will be purely monetary and compensable by an appropriate judgment in a proper case against
CBC. Moreover, where there is a valid cause to foreclose on the mortgages, it cannot be correctly claimed
that the irreparable damage sought to be prevented by the application for preliminary injunction is the loss
of the mortgaged properties to auction sale. The alleged entitlement of SBI and MFII to the "protection of
their properties put up as collateral for the loans" they procured from CBC is not the kind of irreparable
injury contemplated by law. Foreclosure of mortgaged property is not an irreparable damage that will
merit for the debtor-mortgagor the extraordinary provisional remedy of preliminary injunction.
 SPOUSES SILVESTRE O. PLAZA et al. vs. GUILLERMO LUSTIVA et. al.
G.R. No. 172909, March 5, 2014

FACTS:

Petitioners filed a Complaint for Injunction, Damages, Attorney’s Fees with Prayer for the Issuance of the
Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order against the respondents and the City
Government of Butuan. They prayed that the respondents be enjoined from unlawfully and illegally
threatening to take possession of the subject property. According to the petitioners, they acquired the land
from Virginia Tuazon in 1997; Tuazon was the sole bidder and winner in a tax delinquency sale
conducted by the City of Butuan on December 27, 1996.

The RTC found that the auction sale was tainted with irregularity as the bidder was a government
employee disqualified in accordance with Section 89 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and ordered
that prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction be denied.

Through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 65, the petitioners challenged the RTC’s order
before the CA. While the petition for review on certiorari was pending before the CA, the petitioners filed
an action for specific performance against the City Government of Butuan. According to the petitioners,
they acquired possession and ownership over the auctioned property when they redeemed it from Tuazon.
The City Government of Butuan must therefore issue them a certificate of sale. In its October 24, 2005
decision, the CA affirmed the RTC’s ruling, found the petitioners guilty of forum shopping, dismissed the
case.

The petitioners filed the present petition for review on certiorari with SC to challenge the CA rulings.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petition for review on certiorari assailing the order denying the issuance of a preliminary
injunction may proceed despite the dismissal of the main case from which the preliminary injunction was
originally prayed for.

HELD:

The answer is in the negative. Upon the dismissal of the main case by the RTC on August 8, 2013, the
question of issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction has become moot and academic. A case
becomes moot and academic when there is no more issue between the parties or object that can be served
in deciding the merits of the case. Upon the dismissal of the main action, the question of the non-issuance
of a writ of preliminary injunction automatically died with it. A writ of preliminary injunction is a
provisional remedy; it is auxiliary, an adjunct of, and subject to the determination of the main action. It is
deemed lifted upon the dismissal of the main case, any appeal therefrom notwithstanding.