PROVISIONAL REMEDIES: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Injunction is a judicial writ, process or proceeding whereby a party is directed either to do a particular act, in which case it is called a mandatory injunction or to refrain from doing a particular act, in which case it is called a prohibitory injunction.

As a main action, injunction seeks to permanently enjoin the defendant through a final injunction issued by the court and contained in the judgment. Section 9, Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides:

“SEC. 9. When final injunction granted. – If 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 restraining the party or person enjoined from the commission or continuance of the act or acts or confirming the preliminary mandatory injunction” (emphasis supplied).

Two (2) requisites must concur for injunction to issue: (1) there must be a right to be protected and (2) the acts against which the injunction is to be directed are violative of said right. Particularly, in actions involving realty, preliminary injunction will lie only after the plaintiff has fully established his title or right thereto by a proper action for the purpose. To authorize a temporary injunction, the complainant must make out at least a prima facie showing of a right to the final relief.  Preliminary injunction will not issue to protect a right not in esse.  These principles are equally relevant to actions seeking permanent injunction (PHIL. ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, et al. vs. JOSEPH JUDE CARATES, Et al. G.R. No. 181274, June 23, 2010, Third Division, Villarama, Jr. J.).

An injunctive relief is not intended to determine a controverted right, but is calculated to prevent a further perpetration of wrong or the doing of any act whereby the right in controversy may be materially injured or endangered, until a full and deliberate investigation of the case is afforded to the party (GARCIA, JR. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 185132, April 24, 2009, Third Division, Nachura, J.).

           

             Parenthetically, before a court grants injunctive relief, the following must be demonstrated: that complainant is entitled to the relief sought, the actual or threatened violation of complainant’s rights, the probability of irreparable injury, and the inadequacy of pecuniary compensation as relief (Golding v. Balatbat, 36 Phil. 941 [1917]).  Otherwise, there is no basis for the issuance of a writ of injunction.

In this connection, it is worthy to note that the applicant must show that it is entitled to the relief sought, and that acts are being undertaken in violation of the applicant’s rights. A preliminary injunction may be granted only where the plaintiff appears to be clearly entitled to the relief sought and has substantial interest in the right sought to be defended. While the existence of the right need not be conclusively established, it must be clear. The standard is even higher in the case of a preliminary mandatory injunction, which should only be granted –

x x x in cases of extreme urgency; where the right is very clear; where considerations of relative inconvenience bear strongly in complainant's favor; where there is a willful and unlawful invasion of plaintiff's right against his protest and remonstrance, the injury being a continuing one; and where the effect of the mandatory injunction is rather to reestablish and maintain a preexisting continuing relation between the parties, recently and arbitrarily interrupted by the defendant, than to establish a new relation x x x.

In Power Sites and Signs, Inc. vs. United Neon, the Supreme Court stated that there is no "irreparable injury" as understood in law.  Rather, the damages alleged by the petitioner, namely, "immense loss in profit and possible damage claims from clients" and the cost of the billboard which is "a considerable amount of money" is easily quantifiable, and certainly does not fall within the concept of irreparable damage or injury as described in Social Security Commission v. Bayona, 115 Phil. 105, 110 (1962):

“Damages are irreparable within the meaning of the rule relative to the issuance of injunction where there is no standard by which their amount can be measured with reasonable accuracy."

An irreparable injury which a court of equity will enjoin includes that degree of wrong of a repeated and continuing kind which produce hurt, inconvenience, or damage that can be estimated only by conjecture, and not by any accurate standard of measurement". An irreparable injury to authorize an injunction consists of a serious charge of, or is destructive to, the property it affects, either physically or in the character in which it has been held and enjoined, or when the property has some peculiar quality or use, so that its pecuniary value will not fairly recompense the owner of the loss thereof. (Emphasis supplied)

 Evidently, a writ of preliminary injunction should be issued only to prevent grave and irreparable injury, that is, injury that is actual, substantial, and demonstrable. Since any damage petitioner may suffer is easily subject to mathematical computation and, if proven, is fully compensable by damages, a preliminary injunction is not warranted. As previously held in Golding v. Balatbat, 36 Phil. 941 (1917), the writ of injunction ––should never issue when an action for damages would adequately compensate the injuries caused. The very foundation of the jurisdiction to issue the writ rests in the probability of irreparable injury, the inadequacy of pecuniary compensation, and the prevention of the multiplicity of suits, and where facts are not shown to bring the case within these conditions, the relief of injunction should be refused (POWER SITES AND SIGNS, INC. vs. UNITED NEON, G.R. No. 163406, November 24, 2009, Second Division, Del Castillo, J.).