Preliminary mandatory injunction should only be granted "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 re-establish and maintain a pre-existing
continuing relation between the parties, recently and arbitrarily interrupted
by the defendant, than to establish a new relation."
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. It may also
require the performance of a particular act or acts, in which case it shall be
known as a preliminary mandatory injunction.
To justify the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction,
it must be shown that: (1) the complainant has a clear legal right; (2) such
right has been violated and the invasion by the other party is material and
substantial; and (3) there is an urgent and permanent necessity for the writ to
prevent serious damage.
An injunction will
not issue to protect a right not in esse, or a right which is merely contingent
and may never arise since, to be protected by injunction, the alleged right
must be clearly founded on or granted by law or is enforceable as a matter of
law. (HEIRS OF MELENCIO YU vs.
CA [2013], PERALTA, J).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.