July 19, 2017 G.R. No.

202342 permanent; and (d) an order declaring a permanent

AMA LAND, INC., Petitioner right of way in favor of AMALI.
vs.
WACK WACK RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION, INC., AMALI continued the project, WWRAI filed in
Respondent January 2010, an "Urgent Motion to Set for Hearing"
its application for temporary restraining order
CAGUIOA, J. and/or writ of preliminary injunction. The RTC
denied the said motion for lack of merit. A motion
for reconsideration of the above order was filed but
Facts:
was denied.
A commercial and residential building project
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was then filed
located at EDSA comer Fordham Street in Wack
before the CA, and the latter granted WWRAI's
Wack Village, Mandaluyong City, was proposed by
application for a temporary restraining order, and,
AMA Land, Inc. (AMALI) in the mid-1990s.
accordingly, AMALI was commanded to cease and
On March 18, 1996, AMALI notified Wack Wack desist from further committing the act complained
Residents’ Association, Inc. (WWRAI) - a registered of. Then, on July 28, 2011, the application of
homeowners' association of Wack Wack Village - of [WWRAI] for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
its intention to use Fordham Street as an access road injunction was granted as well pending resolution of
and staging area of the project. As AMALI received the x x x petition for certiorari [before the CA].
no response from (WWRAI), the former temporarily
Hence, this petition.
enclosed the job site and set up a field office along
Fordham Street. (WWRAI) claimed, however, that Issue:
AMALI already converted part of the said street as
barrack site and staging area even before March 18, Whether or not WWRAI is entitled to a temporary
1996. All subsequent attempts of (WWRAI) to restraining order and/or a writ of preliminary
remove the said field office proved futile. injunction.

On May 8, 1996, AMALI then filed a petition before Ruling:

the RTC, [wherein it seeks the temporary use of No.
Fordham Street belonging to WWRAI as an access
road to AMALI's construction site of its AMA Tower The Court in Lukang v. Pagbilao Development
project pursuant to Article 6565 of the Civil Code, Corporation11 reiterated the purpose and grounds
and to establish a permanent easement of right of for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction,
way in its favor over a portion of Fordham Street viz.:
pursuant to Article 6496 of the Civil Code. Aside
A writ of preliminary injunction is a provisional
from its prayer for the declaration of temporary and
remedy which is adjunct to a main suit, as well as a
permanent easement of right of way in its favor over
preservative remedy issued to maintain the status
a portion of Fordham Street, AMALI is also] praying
quo of the things subject of the action or the
for: (a) a temporary restraining order (TRO) to
relations between the parties during the pendency
immediately enjoin [WWRAI] from demolishing and
of the suit. The purpose of injunction is to prevent
removing the temporary field office, constructing a
threatened or continuous irremediable injury to the
fence isolating Fordham Street, and preventing
parties before their claims can be thoroughly
AMALI from gaining access to the construction site;
studied and educated. Its sole aim is to preserve the
(b) a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction
status quo until the merits of the case are fully
directing [WWRAI] to allow AMALI to use Fordham
heard. Under Section 3, Rule 58 of the Rules of
Street as an access road and staging area; (c) an
Court, an application for a writ of preliminary
order making the TRO and the aforesaid writ
injunction may be granted if the following grounds merely temporary and once the building is
are established: completed, [said members'] right to live in a
peaceful, quiet and safe environment will be
(a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief
restored without noise and dust.
demanded, and the whole or part of such relief
consists in restraining the commission or As to the allegations that [said members'] privacy
continuance of the act or acts complained of, or in may be invaded for the reason that they may be
requiring the performance of an act or acts, either photographed or videotaped without their
for a limited period or perpetually; knowledge, these fears are merely speculative and
cannot be taken into consideration.
(b) That the commission, continuance or non-
performance of the act or acts complained of during As admitted by [WWRAI's] witness, the construction
the litigation would probably work injustice to the activity is suspended, hence, there is nothing to
applicant; or restrain x x x. There is no urgent and paramount
necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.
(c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing,
threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring Indeed, WWRAI was unable to convincingly
or suffering to be done, some act or acts probably demonstrate a clear and unmistakable right that
in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting must be protected by the injunctive writ. The
the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending apprehensions of its members are, as correctly ruled
to render the judgment ineffectual. by the RTC, speculative and insufficient to
substantiate the element of serious and irreparable
Thus, to be entitled to the injunctive writ, the
damage.
petitioner must show that: (1) there exists a clear and
unmistakable right to be protected; (2) this right is
directly threatened by the act sought to be enjoined; G.R. No. 182758 May 30, 2011
(3) the invasion of the right is material and Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Heirs of Listana
substantial; and (4) there is an urgent and (648 SCRA 416)
paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious
CARPIO, J.
and irreparable damage.

The grant or denial of the injunctive relief rests on The Facts:

the sound discretion of the court taking cognizance
Listana owned a 246.0561-hectare parcel of land in
of the case, since the assessment and evaluation of
Inlagadian, Casiguran, Sorsogon. Listana voluntarily
evidence towards that end involves findings of fact
sold the property to the government, through the
left to the conclusive determination by such court;
Department of Agrarian
and the exercise of judicial discretion by such court
will not be interfered with, except upon a finding of Reform, under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
grave abuse of discretion. Law of 1988.

The Court agrees with the RTC that: The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board (DARAB) of Sorsogon commenced summary
[WWRAI]'s allegation that [its members'16] right to
administrative proceedings to determine the
live in a peaceful, quiet and safe environment will be
amount of just compensation for the property.the
violated in the event that the condominium project
DARAB set the amount at P10,956,963.25 and
of [AMALI] will be erected is untenable. The alleged
ordered petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines
noise and dust that may be caused by the
(LBP) to pay Listana the same.
construction is the natural consequence thereof.
However, this annoyance that may be brought by The Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD)
the construction is not permanent in nature but is issued a writ of execution ordering Land Bank
Manager and Agrarian Operations Center Head Alex The RTCs Ruling
A. Lorayes to pay Listana P10,956,963.25. Lorayes
The RTC denied LBPs motion to withdraw the
refused. Thus, Listana filed with the PARAD a motion
P5,644,773.02 cash bond.
for contempt against Lorayes.
LBP filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for
LBP filed with the Regional Trial Court, a petition for
certiorari.
judicial determination of the amount of just
compensation for the property. LBP challenged the The Court of Appeals Ruling
amount set by the DARAB and prayed that the
amount be fixed at P5,871,689.03. The Court of Appeals dismissed LBPs petition and
affirmed in toto the RTC's Orders.
The PARAD granted Listanas motion for contempt.
The PARAD cited Lorayes for indirect contempt and
ordered his imprisonment until he complied with
Issue:
the DARABs Decision.
LBP raises as issue that the Court of Appeals erred in
The SAC dismissed LBPs petition for judicial
not allowing the withdrawal of the P5,644,773.02
determination of the amount of just compensation cash bond.
for the property. LBP appealed.

The PARAD ordered the issuance of an alias writ of

execution, ordering LBP to pay Listana The Courts Ruling
P10,956,963.25. The PARAD issued a warrant of
The petition is unmeritorious.
arrest against Lorayes.
The Order of the RTC clearly states that the
LBP filed with the RTC a petition for injunction with
respondent Provincial Adjudicator of the DARAB x x
application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
x is enjoined x x x from enforcing its order of arrest
injunction enjoining PARAD from implementing the
against Mr. Alex A. Lorayes pending the final
warrant of arrest against Lorayes. The RTC enjoined
termination of the case before RTC upon the posting
the PARAD from implementing the warrant of arrest
of a cash bond by Land Bank. Thus, LBP cannot
pending final determination of the amount of just
withdraw the bond pending final determination of
compensation for the property.
the amount of just compensation for the property.
Listana filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for
The DARAB set the amount of just compensation for
certiorari. The Court of Appeals set aside Orders of
the property at P10,956,963.25 and ordered LBP to
the RTC.
pay Listana the amount. On 18 June 1999, the
LBP filed with the Court a petition for review on PARAD issued a writ of execution ordering Lorayes
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. In to pay Listana the amount. Lorayes refused and,
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Listana, Sr., the Court later, LBP filed with the RTC a petition for injunction
set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals and with application for the issuance of a writ of
reinstated the Orders of the RTC enjoining the preliminary injunction.
PARAD from implementing the warrant of arrest
An applicant for preliminary injunction is required to
pending final determination of the amount of just
file a bond executed to the party or person enjoined,
compensation for the property.
to the effect that the applicant will pay to such party
The Court declared void all proceedings that or person all damages which he may sustain by
stemmed from Listanas motion for contempt. reason of the injunction. Section 4(b), Rule 58 of the
Rules of Court states:
LBP filed with the RTC a motion to withdraw the
P5,644,773.02 cash bond.
SEC. 4. Verified application and bond for preliminary HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, TWENTY-
injunction or temporary restraining order. A SECOND DIVISION, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY,
preliminary injunction or temporary restraining MINDANAO STATION; SHERIFF ARCHIBALD C.
order may be granted only when: VERGA, and his DEPUTIES, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 33, Hall of Justice, Libertad, Butuan City;
xxxx and FIRST CONSOLIDATED BANK, Respondents.

(b) Unless exempted by the court, the applicant files PERALTA, J.

with the court where the action or proceeding is
pending, a bond executed to the party or person Facts: Petitioner obtained several loans from
enjoined, in an amount to be fixed by the court, to respondent First Consolidated Bank (private
the effect that the applicant will pay to such party or respondent bank) and executed several real estate
person all damages which he may sustain by reason mortgages and chattel mortgage as security.
of the injunction or temporary restraining order if Petitioners were unable to pay some of the loans,
the court should finally decide that the applicant hence private respondent bank filed for an
was not entitled thereto. Upon approval of the application for foreclosure of the mortgages.
requisite bond, a writ of preliminary injunction shall
be issued. Petitioners filed an action for revocation and
annulment of real estate mortgage and chattel
As correctly ruled by the lower courts, the mortgage with plea for the issuance of a temporary
P5,644,773.02 bond shall answer for the damages restraining order and preliminary injunction with the
Listana may sustain if the courts finally uphold the RTC. They alleged that Agusan Institute of
P10,956,963.25 just compensation set by the Technology had already fully paid its obligation with
DARAB. In Republic v. Caguioa, the Court held that, private respondent Bank if the latter did not charge
the purpose of the injunction bond is to protect the exorbitant and excessive interests and penalties and
defendant against loss or damage by reason of the that the total payments they tendered constituted
injunction in case the court finally decides that the overpayments to the loan.
plaintiff was not entitled to it, and the bond is
usually conditioned accordingly. RTC: Issued the writ ordering private respondent
Bank to desist from foreclosing the said contracts of
In any event, the Court has reinstated the Order of mortgage. After trial on the merits, RTC lifted the
the RTC enjoining the PARAD from implementing writ of preliminary injunction and ruled in favor of
the warrant of arrest pending final determination of private respondent Bank.
the amount of just compensation for the property.
Consequently, LBP cannot withdraw the CA: Denied petitioners' appeal with prayer for the
P5,644,773.02 cash bond which is a condition for the issuance "of a TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary
issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction. Injunction.

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition.

Issues:

G.R. No. 190134, July 08, 2015 Whether or not the CA should grant the writ of
SPOUSES ROGELIO and SHIRLEY T. LIM, Agusan preliminary injunction.
Institute of Technology, represented by DR.
SHIRLEY T. LIM, President and as Attorney-in-
Fact of FELIX A. CUENCA, MARY ANN M. Ruling:
MALOLOT, and REY ADONIS M. MEJORADA
Petitioners, No. Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court provides
vs. that a TRO may be issued only if it appears from the
facts shown by affidavits or by verified application have been paid had respondent bank not impose
that great or irreparable injury would be inflicted on astronomical interests on its loans.
the applicant be-fore the writ of preliminary
injunction could be heard.

To be entitled to an injunctive writ, the applicant

must show that there exists a right to be protected
which is directly threatened by an act sought to be
enjoined. Furthermore, there must be a showing
that the invasion of the right is material and
substantial, and that there is an urgent and
paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious
damage.

Australian Professional Realty, Inc. v. Municipality of

Padre Garcia: A writ of preliminary injunction and a
TRO are injunctive reliefs and preservative remedies
for the protection of substantive rights and interests.
Essential to granting the injunctive relief is the
existence of an urgent necessity for the writ in order
to prevent serious damage. A TRO issues only if the
matter is of such extreme urgency that grave
injustice and irreparable injury would arise unless it
is issued immediately.

Pahila-Garrido v. Tortogo: Injunctive relief is

resorted to only when there is a pressing necessity
to avoid injurious consequences that cannot be
redressed under any standard of compensation. The
controlling reason for the existence of the judicial
power to issue the writ of injunction is that the court
may thereby prevent a threatened or continuous
injury to some of the parties before their claims can
be thoroughly investigated and advisedly
adjudicated. A writ of preliminary injunction is an
extraordinary event and is the strong arm of equity,
or a transcendent remedy. It is granted only to
protect actual and existing substantial rights.

In the present Case, CA did not commit grave abuse

of discretion in denying petitioners' application for
preliminary injunction and TRO. As aptly held by the
CA, it neither appears from the facts shown by the
TRO application that' great or irreparable injury
would result to petitioners before the matter can be
heard, nor did they show any clear and positive right
to be entitled to the protection of the ancillary relief
of TRO as they only claim that their debts would