Rule 65 Section 3. Petition for mandamus.

— When any tribunal,

corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of
an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office,
trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment
of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the
person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court,
alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered
commanding the respondent, immediately or at some other time to be
specified by the court, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights
of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by
reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent. (Revised Rules of Court)

In Marquez v. Sanchez summarized, "the requisites of preliminary

injunction whether mandatory or prohibitory are the following":

(1) the applicant must have a clear and unmistakable right, that is a right in
esse;

(2) there is a material and substantial invasion of such right;

(3) there is an urgent need for the writ to prevent irreparable injury to the
applicant; and

(4) no other ordinary, speedy, and adequate remedy exists to prevent the
infliction of irreparable injury.1

It is crystal clear that at the hearing for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction, mere prima facieevidence is needed to establish the applicant's
rights or interests in the subject matter of the main action. It is not required
that the applicant should conclusively show that there was a violation of his
rights as this issue will still be fully litigated in the main case. Thus, an

1 Id. at 517-518, citing Hutchison Ports Philippines Ltd v. Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority, 393 Phil. 843, 859 (2000) [Per J.
Ynares-Santiago, First Division]; and Biñan Steel Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 439 Phil. 688, 703-704 (2002) [Per J. Corona,
Third Division]..
applicant for a writ is required only to show that he has an ostensible right
to the final relief prayed for in his complaint. 2

2 Republic v. Evangelista, 504 Phil. 115, 123 (2005) [Per J. Puno, Second Division], citing Buayan Cattle Co., Inc. v. Quintilian, 213
Phil. 244, 254 (1984) [Per J. Makasiar, Second Division]; Developers Group of Co_mpanies, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
104583, March 8, 1993, 219 SCRA 715, 722 [Per J. Cruz, First Division]; and Saulog v. Court of Appeals, 330 Phil. 590, 602 (1996)
[Per J. Puno, Second Division].