You are on page 1of 3

PROVISIONAL REMEDIES RECENT JURISPRUDENCE (DOCTRINES)

LUKANG vs. PAGBILAO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


G.R. No. 195374, March 10, 2014

Injunction Bonds
The Supreme Court has time and again ruled that the posting of the bond is a
condition sine qua non before a writ of preliminary injunction may issue.
With regard to the issue of the injunctive bond, the Court has time and again ruled that
the posting of the bond is a condition sine qua non before a writ of preliminary injunction
may issue. Its purpose is to secure the person enjoined against any damage that he
may sustain in case the court should finally decide that the applicant was not entitled
thereto. The rule, does not mean, however, that the injunction maybe disregarded since
it becomes effective only after the bond is actually filed in court. In fact, in the case of
Consolidated Workers Union v. Court of Industrial Relations, 27 SCRA 438 (1969), the
Court declared that it was erroneous for the labor court not to require the party to file a
bond. Yet, the Court did not annul the writ of injunction but instead ordered the said
court to determine the appropriate amount of bond to be posted by the party.

SPOUSES PLAZA vs. LUSTIVA


G.R. No. 172909, March 5, 2014
Preliminary Injunction
Upon the dismissal of the main action, the question of the non-issuance of a writ
of preliminary injunction automatically died with it.
In Arevalo v. Planters Development Bank, 670 SCRA 252 (2012), the Court ruled that 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.

LIGON vs. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 56 AT MAKATI CITY AND ITS
PRESIDING JUDGE, JUDGE REYNALDO M. LAIGO
G.R. No. 190028, February 26, 2014
Attachment
Attachment is defined as a provisional remedy by which the property of an adverse
party is taken into legal custody, either at the commencement of an action or at any time

thereafter, as a security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered by
the plaintiff or any proper party. Case law instructs that an attachment is a proceeding in
rem, and, hence, is against the particular property, enforceable against the whole world.
Accordingly, the attaching creditor acquires a specific lien on the attached property
which nothing can subsequently destroy except the very dissolution of the attachment or
levy itself. Such a proceeding, in effect, means that the property attached is an indebted
thing and a virtual condemnation of it to pay the owners debt. The lien continues until
the debt is paid, or sale is had under execution issued on the judgment, or until the
judgment is satisfied, or the attachment discharged or vacated in some manner
provided by law. Thus, a prior registration of an attachment lien creates a preference,
such that when an attachment has been duly levied upon a property, a purchaser
thereof subsequent to the attachment takes the property subject to the said attachment.
As provided under PD 1529, said registration operates as a form of constructive notice
to all persons.
TANTANO vs. CABOVERDE
G.R. No. 203585, July 29, 2013
Receivership
Before appointing a receiver, courts should consider: (1) whether or not the injury
resulting from such appointment would probably be greater than the injury ensuing if the
status quo is left undisturbed; and (2) whether or not the appointment will imperil the
interest of others whose rights deserve as much a consideration from the court as those
of the person requesting for receivership. Moreover, this Court has consistently ruled
that where the effect of the appointment of a receiver is to take real estate out of the
possession of the defendant before the final adjudication of the rights of the parties, the
appointment should be made only in extreme cases.
SOLID BUILDERS, INC. vs. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION
G.R. No. 179665, April 13, 2013
Preliminary Injunction
A plea for an injunctive writ lies upon the existence of a claimed emergency or
extraordinary situation which should be avoided for otherwise, the outcome of a
litigation would be useless as far as the party applying for the writ is concerned. At times
referred to as the Strong Arm of Equity, we have consistently ruled that there is no
power the exercise of which is more delicate and which calls for greater circumspection
than the issuance of an injunction.
HEIRS OF MELENCIO vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 182371, September 4, 2013
J. Peralta
Preliminary Injunction

An Order granting a preliminary injunction, whether mandatory or prohibitory, does not


automatically entitle the applicant-movant to an immediate enforcement. Posting of a bond is a
condition sine qua non for the issuance of a corresponding writ. In fact, under the Rules, the
party filing a bond is mandated to serve a copy thereof to the other party, who may oppose the
sufficiency of the bond or the qualifications of its surety or sureties.

Other Topic
Cagas vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 194139, January 24, 2012
The provision of Section 7, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution, although it confers on the Court
the power to review any decision, order or ruling of the COMELEC limits such power to a final
decision or resolution of the Comelec en banc, and does not extend to an interlocutory order
issued by a Division of the COMELEC. Otherwise stated, the Court has no power to review on
certiorari an interlocutory or even a final resolution issued by a Division of the COMELEC.
The provision of Section 7, Article IX of the 1987 constitution quoted (supra) is interpreted to
mean final orders, rulings and decisions of the COMELEC rendered in the exercise of its
adjucatory or quasi-judicial powers. This decision must be a final decision or resolution of the
COMELEC en banc, not of a division, certainly not an interlocutory order of division. The
Supreme Court has no power to review via certiorari, an interlocutory order or even a final
resolution of a Division of the Commission on Elections.

You might also like