PROVISIONAL REMEDIES AND SPECIAL CIVIL is in this case.

Fraud is a state of mind and need not be proved

ACTIONS by direct evidence but may be inferred from the circumstances
PUP College of Law attendant in each case.
Atty. Albertson S. Cajayon FACTS:
Imperial Organizations put up a performance bond with Liberty
I. Provisional Remedies Insurance to ensure compliance of the concerts entered by the
1. Nature of provisional remedies former with Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines.
GMA Network, Inc. v. National In turn, Liberty Insurance required Imperial Organizations, Jose
Telecommunications Commission, G.R. No. Imperial, Atilla Arkin and Carmen Madlangbayan to execute an
181789, [February 3, 2016], 780 PHIL 244-257 indemnity agreement in its favour to indemnify it for any and all
2. What are the different provisional remedies under the
damages which it may incur by reason of the bund.
Rules of Court?
While the concerts took place, Imperial Organizations and
Calo v. Roldan, G.R. No. L-252, [March 30, 1946], 76
PHIL 445-456 private respondents failed to comply with their obligations, as a
3. Jurisdiction over provisional remedies result of which petitioner Liberty Insurance paid to Coca-cola the
4. Other provisional remedies under various Supreme P3M bond.
Court Issuances and Special Laws Petitioner Liberty made demands upon the private respondents
based on the indemnity bond but to no avail.
II. Preliminary Attachment Petitioner filed with RTC a complaint for damages with
a. Grounds for issuance of writ of attachment application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment
i.Fraud Incurring the obligation against respondents.
RTC issued Order allowing issuance of writ, stating that there
1. Liberty Insurance Corp. v. Court of could have been fraud committed.
Appeals, G.R. No. 104405, [May 13, Arkin filed a motion to Quash/recall Writ of Attachment but this
1993]:
was denied.
To sustain an attachment against a party who has been guilty of
fraud in contracting the debt, it must be shown that the debtor in Arkin filed MR. The Judge reversed the prior Order of denial of
contracting the debt or incurring the obligation intended to the Motion to Quash and thus directed the lifting of the writ of
defraud the creditor. The fraud must relate to the execution of preliminary attachment because a close examination of the
the agreement and must have been the reason which induced evidence shows that the delivery of the “fake collaterals” were
the other party into giving consent which he would not have made 2 days after the issuance of the surety bond. Thus it was
otherwise given. To constitute a ground for attachment in not prior or simultaneous with the execution of the Surety bond.
Section 1 (d), Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, fraud should be On the claim that Arkin removed or disposed of his property with
committed upon contracting the obligation sued upon. intent to defraud his creditors, plaintiff did not prove the intent of
A debt is fraudulently contracted if at the time of contracting it Arkin to defraud creditors.
the debtor has a preconceived plan or intention not to pay, as it Aggrieved, Petitioner filed Petition for Certiorari with the CA.
CA dismissed petition on the ground that petitioner did not file loan equal to his total money placement to a Corporation [Power
MR. Merge] with a subscribed capital of only P37.5M. This credit
ISSUE: facility originated from another loan of about P1.5B extended by
Was the writ of preliminary attachment properly issued? Wincorp to another Corporation [Hottick Holdings]. When the
HELD: latter defaulted in its obligation, Wincorp instituted a case
No. It has been established that all the collaterals given by the against it and its surety. Settlement was, however, reached in
respondent Arkin as security for the bond were either fraudulent which Hottick’s president, Virata, assumed the obligation of the
or heavily encumbered. Records show that the TCT issued by surety.
the ROD used as one of the collaterals, turned out to be fake
and spurious. Likewise, the supposed lien-free motor vehicle Under the scheme agreed upon by Wincorp and Hottick’s
offered as collateral turned out to be heavily mortgaged and was president, Petitioner’s money placements were transferred
even disposed of without informing petitioner. Furthermore, it without his knowledge and consent to the loan account of Power
has also been proven that subsequent to the issuance of the Merge through an agreement that virtually freed the latter of any
surety bond, respondent Arkin started disposing of his other liability. Allegedly, through the false representations of Wincorp
properties. Prior to the filing of the complaint, respondent not and its officers and directors, Petitioner was enticed to roll over
only had sold the motor vehicle given as collateral but that his his placements so that Wincorp could loan the same to Virata or
two other condominium units, were also alienated in favor of a Power Merge.
company of which respondent Arkin is the president. All these
circumstances unerringly point to the devious scheme of Finding that Virata purportedly used Power Merge as a conduit
respondent Arkin to defraud petitioner. and connived with Wincorp’s officers and directors to
fraudulently obtain for his benefit without any intention of paying
2. Wee v. Tankiansee, G.R. No. 171124, the said placements, Petitioner instituted a case for damages
[February 13, 2008], 568 PHIL 819-832 with the RTC of Manila. One of the defendants impleaded in the
complaint is herein respondent Tankiansee, Vice-Chairman and
FACTS: Director of WinCorp. The trial court ordered the issuance of a
Alejandro Ng Wee, a valued client of Westmont Bank (now writ of preliminary attachment against the properties not exempt
United Overseas Bank), made several money placements from execution of all the defendants in the subject, among
totaling P210,595,991.62 with the bank’s affiliate, Westmont others, to Petitioner’s filing of a P50M bond. The writ was
Investment Corporation (Wincorp), a domestic entity engaged in consequently issued.
the business of an investment house with the authority and Arguing that the writ was improperly issued and that the bond
license to extend credit. furnished was grossly insufficient, respondent moved for the
discharge of the attachment. The other defendants likewise filed
Sometime in Feb. 2000, Petitioner received disturbing news on similar motions. The RTC denied all the motions for the
Wincorp’s financial condition prompting him to inquire about and discharge of the attachment. The defendants, including
investigate the company’s operations and transactions with its respondent herein, filed their respective motions for
borrowers. He then discovered that the company extended a reconsideration but the trial court denied the same.
 RULING:
Incidentally, while respondent opted not to question anymore
the said orders, his co-defendants, Virata and UEM-MARA In the case at bench, the basis of Petitioner’s application for the
Philippines Corp. (UEM-MARA), assailed the same via certiorari issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment against the
under Rule 65 before the CA. The CA, however, denied the properties of respondent is Section 1 (d) of Rule 57 of the Rules
petition for certiorari, and the MR thereof. of Court which pertinently reads:
In a Petition for review on certiorari before the SC, in G.R. No. Section 1. Grounds upon which attachment may issue.- At the
162928, the court denied the Petition and affirmed the CA commencement of the action or at any time before entry of
rulings for Virata’s and UEMMARA’s failure to sufficiently show judgment, a plaintiff or any proper party may have the property
that the appellate court committed any reversible error. The SC of the adverse party attached as security for the satisfaction of
subsequently denied the Petition with finality. any judgment that may be recovered in the following cases: x
On Sept. 30, 2004, respondent filed before the trial court xxx
another Motion to Discharge Attachment, re-pleading the (d) In an action against a party who has been guilty of a fraud in
grounds he raised in his first motion but raising the following contracting the debt / incurring the obligation upon which the
additional grounds: (1) that he was not present in Wincorp’s action is brought, or in the performance thereof.
board meetings approving the questionable transactions; and For a writ of attachment to issue under this rule, the applicant
(2) that he could not have connived with Wincorp and the other must sufficiently show the factual circumstances of the alleged
defendants because he and Pearlbank Securities, Inc., in which fraud because fraudulent intent cannot be inferred from the
he is a major stockholder, filed cases against the company as debtor’s mere non-payment of the debt or failure to comply with
they were also victimized by its fraudulent schemes. his obligation. The applicant must then be able to demonstrate
that the debtor has intended to defraud the creditor.
Ruling that the grounds raised were already passed upon by it in In the instant case, Petitioner’s Affidavit is bereft of any factual
the previous orders affirmed by the CA and the SC, and that the statement that respondent committed a fraud. The affidavit
additional grounds were respondent’s affirmative defenses that narrated only the alleged fraudulent transaction between
properly pertained to the merits of the case, the trial court Wincorp and Virata and/or Power Merge, which, by the way,
denied the motion. With the denial of its MR, respondent filed a explains why the Supreme Court, in G.R. No. 162928, affirmed
petition for certiorari before the CA and the latter rendered the the writ of attachment issued against the latter.
assailed Decision reversing and setting aside the The affidavit, being the foundation of the writ, must contain such
aforementioned orders of the trial court and lifting the Writ of particulars as to how the fraud imputed to respondent was
Preliminary Attachment to the extent that it concerned committed for the court to decide whether or not to issue the
respondent’s properties. Petitioner moved for the writ. Absent any statement of other factual circumstances to
reconsideration of the said ruling, but the CA denied the same. show that respondent, at the time of contracting the obligation,
Thus, Petitioner filed the instant Petition. had a preconceived plan or intention not to pay, or without any
ISSUE: showing of how respondent committed the alleged fraud, the
Whether or not the preliminary attachment should be general averment in the affidavit that respondent is an officer
discharged. and director of Wincorp who allegedly connived w/ the other
defendants to commit a fraud, is insufficient to support the 2000], 381 PHIL 282-290
issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment. FACTS:

In the application for the writ under the said ground, compelling On June 1993, Ley Construction and Development Corporation filed a
Complaint for collection of a sum of money with application for
is the need to give a hint about what constituted the fraud and
preliminary attachment against petitioner FCY Construction Group,
how it was perpetrated because established is the rule that
Inc. and Francis C. Yu with the Makati Regional Trial Court.
fraud is never presumed. Verily, the mere fact that respondent is
an officer and director of the company does not necessarily give Respondent alleged that it had a joint venture agreement with
rise to the inference that he committed a fraud or that he petitioner FYC Group over the Tandang Sora Commonwealth Flyover
connived with the other defendants to commit a fraud. government project for which it had provided funds and construction
materials. The Complaint was filed in order to compel petitioners to
While under certain circumstances, courts may treat a pay its half share in the collections received in the project as well as
Corporation as a mere aggroupment of persons, to whom those yet to be received therein. In support of its application for a writ
liability will directly attach, this is only done when the of attachment, private respondent alleged that petitioners were guilty
wrongdoing has been clearly & convincingly established. of fraud in incurring the obligation and had fraudulently misapplied or
converted the money paid them, to which it had an equal share.
Defendants denied such allegation that there was fraud in incurring
Let it be stressed that the provisional remedy of preliminary
the obligations in the agreement.
attachment is harsh and rigorous for it exposes the debtor to
humiliation and annoyance. The rules governing its issuance
are, therefore, strictly construed against the applicant, such that An ex parte hearing was conducted and the lower ordered for the
if the requisites for its grant are not shown to be all present, the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment and conditioned upon
court shall refrain from issuing it, for, otherwise, the court which filing of 7M attachment bond.
issues it acts in excess of its jurisdiction.
Petitioners move for the lifting of the writ on several grounds and
Likewise, the writ should not be abused to cause unnecessary prayed in there motion that the attachments must be limited to
prejudice. If it is wrongfully issued on the basis of false or receivables with the DPWH. The court then lifted the attachment and
reduce and confined the attachment to receivables due petitioners
insufficient allegations, it should at once be corrected.
inTandang Sora commonwealth fly over.
Considering, therefore, that, in this case, Petitioner has not fully
satisfied the legal obligation to show the specific acts Defendant subsequently filed two motions before the RTC, first a
constitutive of the alleged fraud committed by respondent, the motion for consideration, and second an omnibus motion for leave
trial court acted in excess of its jurisdiction when it issued the and to delete Francis Yu as party defendant. However both motions
writ of preliminary attachment against the properties of were denied by the RTC.
respondent. Defendants appealed the case in the CA but was also dened. Hence
an instant petition was elevated to the Supreme Court.
3. FCY Construction Group, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 123358, [February 1, ISSUE:
 hearing on such motion for dissolution of the writ would be
Whether writ of preliminary attachment was irregularly issued tantamount to a trial on the merits.”
inasmuch as there was no evidence of fraud in incurring the
obligations sued upon. 4. Metro, Inc. v. Lara's Gifts and Decors,
Inc., G.R. No. 171741, [November 27,
HELD: 2009], 621 PHIL 162-172
FACTS:
The Supreme Court held that based on the the foregoing facts of the
case, the alleged inducement by the DPWH officials upon private Lara’s Gifts and Decors Inc. (LGD) and Metro, Inc. are
respondent as well as the circumstances surrounding the execution of corporations engaged in the business of manufacturing,
the joint venture agreement, both appear immaterial as they were not producing, selling and exporting handicrafts. With Sps. Luis and
committed upon contracting the obligation sued upon but occurred Lara Villafuerte are the president and vice president of LGD
long after the obligation has been established. respectively. And Sps Juan and Liza Juan are the principal
officers of the Metro Inc.
The fact that petitioners have paid a substantial amount of money to
private respondent cannot save the day for them either. As per their Sometime in 2001, an agreement between the parties that LGD
own accounting, such payments were for accounts payable for labor would endorse to Metro Inc. orders received by respondents
supplied, construction materials and cash advances. It is not denied from their buyers in the United States of America in exchange
that no payment of profits has been given to private respondent, for a 15% commission, to be shared equally by respondents and
which is precisely what it is suing for. James R. Paddon (JRP), LGD’s agent. The terms of the
agreement were later embodied in an e-mail labeled as the
Considering that the writ of preliminary attachment has been issued "2001 Agreement.
on account of allegations of fraud in contracting the obligation upon
which the action is brought petitioners' efforts to have the writ of Respondent LGD filed with the RTC of Las Pinas against
preliminary attachment dissolved on the ground that it was improperly petitioner for sum and damages with prayer for the issuance of
or irregularly issued is in vain. Citing the previos case of Liberty writ of attachment. And was later amended and alleged that
Insurance Corporation, LGD was defrauded for an amount of 500,000k Dollars and tey
also prayed for a 1Million pesos as Moral damages.
“when the preliminary attachment is issued upon a ground
which is at the same time the applicant's cause of action: e.g., the trial court granted respondents’ prayer and issued the writ of
x x x an action against a party who has been guilty of fraud in attachment against the properties and assets of petitioners.
contracting the debt or incurring the obligation upon which the
action is brought, the defendant is not allowed to file a motion Metro Inc. filed a motion to discharge the writ of attachment
to dissolve the attachment under Section 13 of Rule 57 by rgued that the writ of attachment should be discharged on the
offering to show the falsity of the factual averments in the
several grounds: one of which is that respondents failed to
plaintiff’s application and affidavits on which the writ was
substantiate their allegations of fraud with specific acts or deeds
based and consequently that the writ based therein had been
showing how petitioners defrauded them; and (4) that
improperly or irregularly issued - the reason being that the
respondents failed to establish that the unpaid commissions
were already due and demandable.
 Respondents’ allegation that petitioners undertook to sell
The Writ of Preliminary attachment was hereby discharged or exclusively and only through JRP/LGD for Target Stores
lifted. Corporation but that petitioners transacted directly with
respondents’ foreign buyer is sufficient allegation of fraud to
Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, but was later on support their application for a writ of preliminary attachment.
denied by the lower court. And eventually respondents file an Since the writ of preliminary attachment was properly issued,
appeal before the CA and was granted the same. the only way it can be dissolved is by filing a counter-bond in
accordance with Section 12, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court.
Hence this petition to the Supreme Court. Petitioners contend
that the writ of attachment was improperly issued because Furthermore the Supreme Court explained that "when the writ of
respondents’ amended complaint failed to allege specific acts or attachment is issued upon a ground which is at the same time
circumstances constitutive of fraud. Petitioners insist that the the applicant’s cause of action, the only other way the writ can
improperly issued writ of attachment may be discharged without be lifted or dissolved is by a counter-bond"21 is applicable in
the necessity of filing a counter-bond. this case. It is clear that in respondents’ amended complaint of
fraud is not only alleged as a ground for the issuance of the writ
ISSUE: of preliminary attachment, but it is also the core of respondents’
complaint. The fear of the Court of Appeals that petitioners
Whether the writ of attachment issued by the trial court was could force a trial on the merits of the case on the strength of a
improperly issued such that it may be discharged without the mere motion to dissolve the attachment has a basis.
filing of a counter-bond.
5. Republic v. Estate of Lim, Sr., G.R. No.
HELD: 164800, [July 22, 2009], 611 PHIL 37-59
FACTS:

The supreme Court ruled that the petition has no merit. Citing Republic, represented by the Presidential Commission on Good
the decision in Liberty Insurance Corporation v. Court of Government (PCGG), filed before the Sandiganbayan, an Amended
Complaint for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution, and
Appeals, it was explained:
damages. In it, the Republic averred that Alfonso Lim, Sr. (now
deceased) and Alfonso Lim, Jr., acting by themselves and/or in
To sustain an attachment on this ground, it must be unlawful collusion with the then Pres Marcos and Imelda and taking
shown that the debtor in contracting the debt or incurring undue advantage of their relationship, influence, and connection with
the obligation intended to defraud the creditor. The fraud the latter, embarked upon devices and stratagems to unjustly enrich
must relate to the execution of the agreement and must themselves at the expense of the Republic and the Filipino people.
have been the reason which induced the other party into
giving consent which he would not have otherwise given. The allegations are as follows;
To constitute a ground for attachment in Section 1(d), 1. Actively solicited and obtained, upon the personal behest of
Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, fraud should be committed [the Marcoses] orporations beneficially held and controlled by
Alfonso Lim and Alfonso Lim, Jr., which, in addition to other
upon contracting the obligation sued upon. A debt is
areas already awarded to TAGGAT and PAMPLONA,
fraudulently contracted if at the time of contracting it the 2. actively solicited and obtained a management contract in favor
debtor has a preconceived plan or intention not to pay,
 of TAGGAT to operate and manage the logging concessions already on record support the issuance of a writ or preliminary
of Veterans Woodwork, Inc. (VETERANS), Sierra Madre Wood attachment.
Industries, Inc. (SIERRA MADRE), and Tropical Philippines
Wood Industries, Inc. (TROPICAL) HELD:
3. btained a permit to cut down a certain number of Narra and
Yes. The Supreme Court explained that the Attachment is an ancillary
Amaciga trees, and exported the same even if there still a ban
on the export of aforesaid trees. remedy applied for not for its own sake but to enable the attaching
4. obtained, in favor of PAMPLONA, a syndicated loan in the party to realize upon relief sought and expected to be granted in the
amount of millions of US dollars from a consortium of main or principal action; 19 it is a measure auxiliary or incidental to
international banks, secured by the guarantee of the National the main action. As such, it is available during the pendency of the
Investment and Development Corporation (NIDC),. action which may be resorted to by a litigant to preserve and protect
certain rights and interests therein pending rendition, and for purposes
of the ultimate effects , of a final judgment in the case. As a corollary
As its main prayer, the Republic asked for the reconveyance of all proposition, an order granting an application for a writ of preliminary
funds and property impressed with constructive trust in favor of the attachment cannot, owing to the incidental or auxiliary nature of such
Republic and the Filipino people, "as well as funds and other property order, be the subject of an appeal independently of the main action.
acquired with [respondents'] abuse of right and power and through
unjust enrichment. In the case at bar, the Republic has, to us, sufficiently discharged the
burden of demonstrating the commission of fraud committed by
Meanwhile, Lim Sr. Died and his estate file a motion to lift the respondents Lims as a condition sine qua non for the issuance of a
sequestration over the several real properties mentioned in this case. writ of preliminary attachment. Sandiganbayan unqualifiedly admitted
They contend that the PCGG impleaded them owing to his alleged in evidence. And the fraud or fraudulent scheme principally came in
association with former Pres. Marcos. the said motion to lift was was the form of Lim, Sr. holding and/or operating logging concessions
interposed by the PCGG alleging that the sequestered lots and titles which far exceeded the allowable area prescribed under the 1973
stand as security for the satisfaction of any judgment the Republic Constitution.
may obtain against the estate of Lim, Sr., his family, or his group of
companies.
The Sandiganbayan lifted the sequestration order citing that the b. Requisites
pertinent provisions of Executive Order Nos. 1, 2 and 14 are explicit in 1. An order of Attachment shall be granted only upon the
saying that the properties that are supposed to be "sequestered" are filing of the requisite affidavit and bond
those x x x amassed during the regime of the deposed President 2. The required affidavit need not be executed by the
Ferdinand E. Marcos and not before or later thereto. applicant. It may be executed by other person who
personally knows the facts
the Republic sought but was later denied reconsideration of the
3. Aside from the affidavit executed, the party applying
sequestration-lifting resolution of the Sandiganbayan.
for an order of preliminary attachment must post a
ISSUE: bond in the amount which is fixed by the court and
executed by the adverse party.
Whether the Sandiganbayan, in light of the denial of respondents
demurrer to evidence, acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting
c. Issuance and contents of order of attachment;
to lack or excess of jurisdiction in not considering that the evidence
affidavit and bond
 Sps Tomas and Maria Soliven were registered owners, under
Stages of issuance of writ of attachment the TCT of a parcel of land in Sta Barbara in Pangasinan.
 the court issues the order granting the application Sometime in 1992, the Sps Soliven sold the subject property to
 the writ of attachment is issued pursuant to the order respondent Manila Mission of the Church of Jesus Christ of
granting the writ Latter Day Saints, Inc. (Manila Mission). However the TCT in the
 the writ is implemented name of Solivens were cancelled and a new TCT was issued in
the name of the respondent.
Issuance of order of attachment
The writ of preliminary attachment may be issued petitioner Rural Bank of Sta. Barbara (Pangasinan), Inc. filed
 Ex Parte and even before summons is served upon the with the RTC a Complaint against the spouses Soliven for a
defendant sum of money. The Complaint of petitioner included a prayer for
 Upon motion and notice of hearing, by the court in which the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Attachment. Which the
the action is pending and may even be issued by the CA RTC ordered the issuance of such Preliminary writ and ordered
or the SC to satidy the principal claim of 338, 000. And a bond of in the
amount of 100k
Contents of the order of attachment
It must require the sheriff of the court to attach so uch of the Upon the filing by petitioner of the required bond, the RTC
property in the Philippines of the party against whom it is issued, issued the Writ of Attachment. Acting on the order, the sheriff
not exempt from the execution, as may be sufficient to satisfy attached the subject property, which was then still in the name
the applicants demand, unless such party makes deposit or of the spouses Soliven.
gives a bond in an amount equal to that fixed in order.
f. Discharge of attachment and the counter-bond
A. G.B., Inc. v. Sanchez, G.R. No. L-7717, [April 27,
d. Rule on prior or contemporaneous service of 1956], 98 PHIL 886-892
summons B. Insular Savings Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
e. Manner of attaching real and personal property; No. 123638, [June 15, 2005], 499 PHIL 116-125
when property attached is claimed by third person g. Satisfaction of judgment out of property attached

III. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

A. DEFINITIONS AND DIFFERENCES: PRELIMINARY

Rural Bank of Sta. Barbara [Pangasinan], Inc. INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
v. The Manila Mission of the Church of Jesus Christ ORDER
of Latter Day Saints, Inc., G.R. No. 130223, [August
19, 2009], 613 PHIL 40-55 Preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an
action, prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a party
FACTS: court, or agency or person to perform or refrain from performing
a particular act or acts.
  It is an ancillary or preventive remedy where a court 5. TRO – temporary restraining order – it is an
requires a person, party or even a court or tribunal either interlocutory order issued as a restraint to the defendant
to refrain from or perform particular acts during the to preserve the status quo on the ground of irreparable
pendency of the case. injury granted to a party until the hearing of the
application of preliminary injunction which cannot be
 Availed to require one to refrain from a particular act, the issued ex parte.
Preliminary Injunction is prohibitory 6. SHOWING OF CLEAR LEGAL RIGHT -a preliminary
injunctive writ under Rule 58 issues only upon a showing
 If it requires the performance of a particular act or acts of the applicant’s “clear legal right” being violated or
the Preliminary Injunction is Mandatory. under threat of violation by the defendant. “Clear legal
right,” within the meaning of Rule
OBJECTIVE: the objective of the writ is to maintain the
prevailing state of affairs of the parties prior to the controversy. REQUISITES OF WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION OR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (2006, 2010 BAR)
Preliminary injunction just like preliminary attachment requires a
main action. 1. Verified application stating the grounds for its issuance
(Sec. 4, Rule 58);
PURPOSE: to maintain the Status quo of the subject matter of 2. Applicant must establish: i) the existence of a right that
the action to protect the rights of the plaintiff during the must be protective and ii) an urgent and paramount
pendency of the suit. necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage;
3. Applicant must establish that there is a need to restrain
1. A writ of Preliminary Injunction is issued by the court to the commission or continuance of the acts complained of
prevent threatened or continuous irreparable injury to and if not enjoined would work injustice to the applicant;
parties before the claims can be thoroughly studied and 4. Applicant must post a bond, unless exempted by the
adjudicated and during the pendency of an action court. This bond is executed in favor of the person
2. Well-settled sole object of a Preliminary injunction is to enjoined to answer for all damages which the latter may
preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can sustain by reason of injunction or restraining order if the
be heard. court should finally decide that the applicant was not
3. STATUS QUO – defined as the last actual, peaceful, and entitled to the writ or order;
uncontested status that preceded the controversy, that 5. Notice and hearing is required.
which existing at the time of the filing of the case,
indubitably, the trial court must not make use of its REQUISITES to be entitled to an injunctive writ, the petitioner
injunctive power to alter the status. has the burden to establish the following requisites:
4. A STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER is issued, effective
immediately and continuing until further orders from this (1) a right in esse or a clear and unmistakable right to be
Court, ordering You, parties, your agents, protected;
representatives, or persons acting in your place or stead (2) a violation of that right;
to maintain the status quo (3) that there is an urgent and permanent act and urgent
necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.
GROUNDS FOR ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY INJUCTION lower court, board, 2. If issued by CA –
officer, or quasijudicial 60 days from
RULE 58 - Section 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary agency shall decide the service on the
injunction. — A preliminary injunction may be granted when it is main case or petition party sought to
established: within 6 months from the be enjoined
issuance of the writ which is non-
(a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, (Sec. 5, Rule 58, as extendible (2006
and the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining amended by A.M. No. Bar);
the commission or continuance of the act or acts 07-7- 12-SC) 3. If issued by SC –
complained of, or in requiring the performance of an act Effective until
or acts either for a limited period or perpetually; further orders.
If the matter is of
(b) That the commission, continuance or non- extreme urgency and
performance of the act or acts complained of during the the applicant will suffer
litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or grave injustice and
irreparable injury, the
(c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, judge may issue an
threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or exparte TRO effective
suffering to be done some act or acts probably in for 72 hours from
violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the issuance but shall
subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render comply with the rule on
the judgment ineffectual. (3a) contemporaneous
service of summons
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRO AND PRELIMNARY unless the same could
INJUNCTION not be served personally
or by substituted service
PRELIMINARY IN TRO despite diligent efforts.
JUNCTION The period may be
Effective during the Duration extended for a period
pendency of the action (nonextendible) (Sec. 5, not exceeding 20 days
unless earlier dissolved Rule 58): including the 72 hours
NOTE: The trial court, already given. (Sec.5,
the Court of Appeals, 1. If issued by Rule 58) NOTE:
the Sandiganbayan or RTC/MTC – 20 Prohibition against the
the Court of Tax days from service renewal applies only if
Appeals that issued a on the person the same is sought
writ of preliminary sought to be under and by reason of
injunction against a enjoined; the same ground for
which it was originally
 issued (Regalado, 2008) the billboard was due to force majeure. Digitel filed a case on
Restrains or requires Maintain status quo ante the MeTC for the return of the deposit equal to two months.
the performance of
particular acts LPI aslo filed a Third-party Complaint against MACgraphics
Notice and hearing GR: Notice and hearing Carranz International Corporation, alleging that it had entered
always required (Sec. 5, required into a contract of lease with Roman Catholic Archbishop of
Rule 58) (2001 Bar) Manila (RCAM) over a space inside San Carlos Manor
XPN: A TRO effective Seminary where LPI erected the subject billboard. LPI further
The hearing shall be for 72 days from averred that despite its full compliance with the terms and
conducted within 24 issuance may be issued conditions of the lease contract, herein MACgraphics
hours after the sheriff’s ex-parte under the maliciously dismantled and destroyed the subject billboard and
return of service. (Sec following instances: 1) If prevented its men from reconstructing it. Thereafter, petitioner
4[d], Rule 58) great or irreparable learned that Macgraphics had "cajoled and induced" RCAM to
injury would result to the destroy the subject billboard to enable MACgraphics to erect its
applicant before the own billboard and advertising signs. Thus, by way of affirmative
matter can be heard on defenses, petitioner claimed that: (a) the destruction of the
notice If the matter is of subject billboard was not of its own making and beyond its
extreme urgency and control, and (b) Digital’s cause of action, if any, should be
the applicant will suffer directed against Macgraphics.
grave injustice and
irreparable injury LPI prayed that judgment be rendered in its favor and to hold
Can be issued to Cannot be issued to private respondents liable for the allegedly suffered or incurred
compel the performance compel the performance by it because of the willful destruction of the billboard.
of an act of an act Respondents filed for MTD but was denied. On 06 February
1998, the RTC granted private respondents’ prayer for a writ of
preliminary injunction, conditioned upon the posting of an
injunction bond in the amount of ₱10,000.00. Thus, the MeTC
Limitless Potentials, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. was enjoined from hearing the Third-Party Complaint.
164459, [April 24, 2007], 550 PHIL 250-271
LPI filed a Motion for Judgment Against the Bond claiming that
Facts: the amount was not enough. The RTC denied LPI's motion
declaring that the preliminary compared to the damages
Limitless Potentials, Inc. (LPI), entered into a Billboard incurred. injunction was not wrongfully obtained; therefore, the
Advertisement Contract with Digital’s product for a period of one claim for damages on the bond is untenable. On appeal, the CA
year. The resurrected billboard was destroyed for unknown dismissed the Petition for lack of merit.
reasons by unknown persons, hence Digital terminated the
contract and demanded the return of their rental cost for two Issue:
months. LPI refused to do so, claiming that the destruction of
Are attorney’s fees, litigation costs, and cost of delay by reason adjudicated. Thus, to be entitled to an injunctive writ, the
of the injunction covered by the injunction bond petitioner has the burden to establish the following requisites:
(1) a right in esse or a clear and unmistakable right to be
Ruling: protected;
(2) a violation of that right;
Yes, the contention is tenable. Under Sec 4b of the Rule on (3) that there is an urgent and permanent act and urgent
Preliminary Injunction, an injunction bond is answerable for all necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage .
damages. The bond insures with all practicable certainty that the
defendant may sustain no ultimate loss in the event that the 5. Section 4(b), Rule 58 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil
injunction could finally be dissolved. Procedure, to wit:

GOVERNNING DOCTRINE OF THE CASE Unless exempted by the court, the applicant files with the court
where the action or proceeding is pending, a bond executed to
preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy that a party may the party or person enjoined, in an amount to be fixed by the
resort to in order to preserve and protect certain rights and court, to the effect that the applicant will pay to such party or
interests during the pendency of an action. It is an order granted person all damages which he may sustain by reason of the
at any stage of an action, prior to the judgment or final order, injunction or temporary restraining order if the court should
requiring a party, court, agency or person to perform or to refrain finally decide that the applicant was not entitled thereto. Upon
from performing a particular act or acts. The status quo should approval of the requisite bond, a writ of preliminary injunction
be existing the time of the filing of the case. shall be issued.
2. A preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order may be
granted only when, among other things, the applicant, not PURPOSE
explicitly exempted, files with the court, where the action or
proceeding is pending, a bond executed to the party or person Preysler, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 158141, [July 11,
enjoined, in an amount to be fixed by the court, to the effect that 2006], 527 PHIL 129-137
the applicant will pay such party or person all damages which he
may sustain by reason of the injunction or temporary restraining FACTS:
order if the court should finally decide that the applicant was not
entitled thereto. Upon approval of the requisite bond, a writ of Far East Enterprises owns Tali Beach Subdivision. Petitioner
preliminary injunction shall be issued. Thus, the posting of a owned lots therein and adjacent thereto. To gain access to the
bond is a condition sine qua non for a writ of preliminary latter, petitioner has to pass through the subdivision. He offered
injunction to be issued. 10,000 for the easement of right of way but Far East refused. It
3. The injunction bond is intended as a security for damages in then barricaded the front gate to prevent petitioner from using
case it is finally decided that the injunction ought not to have the subdivision road.
been granted.
4. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to prevent Petitioner filed a complaint for right of way with prayer for
threatened or continuous irremediable injury to some of the preliminary prohibitive injunction.
parties before their claims can be thoroughly studied and
RTC: Ordered private respondent to remove the barricade and GOVERNING DOCTRINE: The objective of a writ of preliminary
to cease and desist from obstructing plaintiff’s entry and exit into injunction is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the
the properties. Writ of Preliminary Injunction was issued. case can be fully heard. Status quo is the last actual, peaceful
and uncontested situation which precedes a controversy.
Later, petitioner used the road to transport heavy equipment and
materials to develop his property. Petitioner Respondent moved
to dissolve the writ claiming violation of its right to peaceful
possession and occupation of Tali beach – denied. SCOPE

Trial court issued joint resolution amending the original writ, Mantile v. Cajucom, G.R. No. 5734, [August 17, 1911], 19
allowing contractors, visitors and other representatives be PHIL 563-574
allowed access and to install electric power lines over the Tali
Beach. FACTS:
CA: Set aside the amended writ. Hence, this petition.
Plaintiff-Appellants are farmers who filed a complaint with a
ISSUE: prayer of preliminary injunction against defendant-appellees to
restrain the defendants from continuing to close the canal or
Whether the amended writ of injunction was properly issued to estero through which the water ran that irrigated the rice fields of
Private respondent: What was granted in the original writ was the plaintiffs and obstructing the course of water. Furthermore,
not the easement of right of way but only the maintenance of the that a writ of perpetual injunction be issued against the
status quo. Its recognition of the original writ should not be defendants and payment of damages.
construed as admitting that petitioner had a right of way. The Plaintiffs furnished a bond and writ of preliminary injunction was
amended writ amounted to premature adjudication on the merits issued against the defendants. However, defendants continued
of the claim. to obstruct and hinder the passage of the water, in disobedience
to the judicial order. Defendants failed, in person nor in
HELD: representation, to explain the disobedience, thus the court held
them in contempt.
No. The last actual, peaceful and uncontested situation that The defendants raised that the writ issued by the court
preceded the controversy was solely the access of petitioner contained no order instructing the defendants to raise or remove
and his household to his property outside the subdivision for the current obstructions therein. That the writ just mentioned
visits and inspections. At the time the writ was applied for in that they should abstain from performing any act whatever
1995, there was still no construction going on in the property. It tending to obstruct and prevent the flow of water, thus they
was merely raw land. The use of the subdivision roads for should not be held for contempt.
ingress and egress of construction workers, heavy equipment,
delivery of construction materials, and installation of power lines, ISSUE/S:
are clearly not part of the status quo in the original writ. WON the defendants should be held for contempt.
However, a temporary easement is granted under Art. 656.
RULING:
NO. Section 162 of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes:
An injunction is a writ or order requiring a person to refrain from (a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded,
a particular act. and the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining
it is the order or writ which prohibits a particular person from the commission or continuance of the act or acts
performing a particular act, and therefore, if a writ of preliminary complained of, or in requiring the performance of an act
injunction has been issued against a particular person, enjoining or acts either for a limited period or perpetually;
him, for example, from performing any act whatever that may
tend to close and obstruct an irrigation ditch by preventing the (b) That the commission, continuance or non-
passage of the water, when the said ditch was already closed, it performance of the act or acts complained of during the
cannot be understood that the person, against whom the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant;
prohibitory order was issued, willfully disregarded and or
disobeyed the said judicial writ by not removing the obstacle that
prevented the flow of the water, because this last operation is (c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing,
not covered by the writ of injunction. threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or
suffering to be done some act or acts probably in
If in a writ of preliminary injunction those who become the violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the
defendants are not enjoined or required to remove the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render
impediment or obstacle complained of as being prejudicial to the the judgment ineffectual. (3a)
rights and interests of the plaintiff, but merely to abstain or
desist from performing any act contrary and prejudicial to such RULE 58 - Section 4. Verified application and bond for
rights and interests, the mere fact of their not having taken out preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. — A
or removed the obstacle or impediment, which already existed preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order may be
at the time of the issuance of the injunction, does not constitute granted only when:
disobedience to, or contempt of, a judicial order, because what
has already been done cannot be prohibited. a. The application in the action or proceeding is
Here, the writ issued was prohibiting the defendants to further verified, and shows facts entitling the applicant
obstruct, close, or hinder the course of water though the canal, to the relief demanded; and
when it was already obstructed and closed. And since there was
no order for the removal of the obstruction already made, their b. Unless exempted by the court the applicant
inaction leaving the same does not constitute contempt of court, files with the court where the action or
as they did not violate any judicial prohibition. proceeding is pending, a bond executed to the
party or person enjoined, in an amount to be
B. SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT, APPLICATION fixed by the court, to the effect that the
AND OTHER REQUISITES applicant will pay to such party or person all
damages which he may sustain by reason of
the injunction or temporary restraining order if
RULE 8 - Section 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary the court should finally decide that the
injunction. — A preliminary injunction may be granted when it is applicant was not entitled thereto. Upon
established: approval of the requisite bond, a writ of
preliminary injunction shall be issued. (4a)
 c. When an application for a writ of preliminary
injunction or a temporary restraining order is Republic v. Evangelista, G.R. No. 156015, [August 11, 2005],
included in a complaint or any initiatory 504 PHIL 115-125
pleading, the case, if filed in a multiple-sala
court, shall be raffled only after notice to and in Facts:
the presence of the adverse party or the
person to be enjoined. In any event, such Calimlim, representing the Republic of the Philippines as then
notice shall be preceded, or head of the Intelligence Service of the AFP and the Presidential
contemporaneously accompanied, by service Security Group, entered into a MOA with one Ciriaco Reyes
of summons, together with a copy of the granting Reyes a permit to hunt for treasure in a land in Bigte,
complaint or initiatory pleading and the Norzagaray, Bulacan. Calimlim assigned about 80 military
applicant's affidavit and bond, upon the personnel to guard the area and encamp thereon to intimidate
adverse party in the Philippines. Legaspi and other occupants of the area from going near the
subject land.
However, where the summons could not be
served personally or by substituted service Legaspi executed a SPA appointing his nephew (Gutierrez) who
despite diligent efforts, or the adverse party is was given the power to deal with the treasure hunting activities
a resident of the Philippines temporarily absent on Legaspi’s land and to file charges against those who may
therefrom or is a nonresident thereof, the enter it without the latter’s authority. Gutierrez filed a case for
requirement of prior or contemporaneous damages and injunction against petitioners for illegally entering
service of summons shall not apply. Legaspi’s land.

d. The application for a temporary restraining Exec. Judge Tria Tirona issued a 72-hour TRO against
order shall thereafter be acted upon only after petitioners. The case was subsequently raffled to the RTC
all parties are heard in a summary hearing Quezon City, then presided by public respondent Judge
which shall be conducted within twenty-four Evangelista who issued another 72-hour TRO and a summary
(24) hours after the sheriff's return of service hearing for its extension.
and/or the records are received by the branch
selected by raffle and to which the records Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss since the SPA was already
shall be transmitted immediately. revoked and a Motion for Inhibition of the respondent judge on
the ground of alleged partiality in favor of Legaspi.
NOTICE AND HEARING – a preliminary injunction cannot be
issued without a prior notice and hearing. Under the rules, No TC granted Legaspi’s application for a writ of preliminary
preliminary injunction shall be granted without hearing and prior injunction on the ff. grounds: (1) there is an urgent need to
notice to the party or persons sought to be enjoined maintain the status quo to prevent serious damage to Legaspi’s
land; and (2) the SPA granted to Gutierrez continues to be valid.
CA affirmed the decision.
SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT
Issue:
Whether the complaint against petitioners invalidates the damages. It was necessary for the trial court to issue the writ of
issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction. No. preliminary injunction during the pendency of the main case in
order to preserve the rights and interests of private respondents
Ruling: Legaspi and Gutierrez.

Section 3, Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides C. KINDS OF INJUNCTION
that a writ of preliminary injunction may be issued when it is
established: Final Injunction

xxx RULE 58 - Section 9. When final injunction granted. — If

after the trial of the action it appears that the applicant is
(b) that the commission, continuance or non-performance of the entitled to have the act or acts complained of
act or acts complained of during the litigation would probably permanently enjoined the court shall grant a final
work injustice to the applicant; or injunction perpetually restraining the party or person
enjoined from the commission or continuance of the act
(c) that a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or acts of confirming the preliminary mandatory
or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, injunction.
some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the
applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and It is one issued in the judgment in the case permanently
tending to render the judgment ineffectual. restraining the defendant or making the preliminary injunction
permanent.
It is crystal clear that at the hearing for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction, mere prima facie evidence is needed to Preventive Injunction
establish the applicant’s rights or interests in the subject matter One which Commands one from refraining doing a particular
of the main action. It is not required that the applicant should act.
conclusively show that there was a violation of his rights as this The status quo is preserved
issue will still be fully litigated in the main case. Thus, an
applicant for a writ is required only to show that he has an Mandatory Injunction
ostensible right to the final relief prayed for in his complaint. One which commands the performance of a particular act.
The status quo is restored.

It was established, prima facie, that Legaspi has a right to MANDATORY MANDAMUS
peaceful possession of his land, pendente lite. Legaspi had title INJUNCTION
to the subject land. It was likewise established that the diggings Provisional Remedy Special Civil Action
were conducted by petitioners in the enclosed area of Legaspi’s Directed to a party Seeking the
land. Whether the land fenced by Gutierrez and claimed to be litigant to perform an judgment
included in the land of Legaspi covered an area beyond that act and restore the commanding a
which is included in the title of Legaspi is a factual issue still last peaceable tribunal corporation,
subject to litigation and proof by the parties in the main case for
 uncontested status board officer or On September 22, 1999, HGL wrote Semirara (1) demanding
preceding the person to perform a full disclosure of activities on the land and (2) prohibiting
controversyy ministerial duty Semirara from constructing any improvements without HGL's
required to be permission. Semirara ignored the demand and continued with
performed by the its activities.
law.
On December 6, 2000, the DENR unilaterally cancelled
FLGLA No. 184 and ordered HGL to vacate the premises.
DENR found that (1) HGL failed to pay the annual rental and
Semirara Coal Corp. v. HGL Development Corp., G.R. No.
surcharges from 1986 to 1999; (2) failed to submit the required
166854, [December 6, 2006], 539 PHIL 532-547.
Grazing Reports from 1985 to 1999; and (3) failed to pay the
FACTS: corresponding penalty for non-submission of such reports.

Petitioner Semirara is a grantee by the Department of Energy HGL filed a letter of reconsideration but was denied by DENR.
of a Coal Operating Contract under P.D. No. 972 over the Unless it could be proved that coal deposits were not present,
entire Island of Semirara, Antique, containing an area of more HGL's request had to be denied. HGL sent another letter of
or less 5,500 hectares. reconsideration, but since DENR did not act on it, HGL
withdrew the letter.
Private respondent HGL is a grantee of Forest Land Grazing
Lease Agreement (FLGLA) No. 184 by the then Ministry of On November 17, 2003, HGL filed a complaint against the
Environment and Natural Resources over 367 hectares of land DENR for specific performance and damages with prayer for a
in Bobog and Pontod, Semirara, Caluya, Antique. Since its temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary
grant, HGL has been grazing cattle on the subject property. injunction with RTC Caloocan. A writ of preliminary injunction
was issued by the RTC Caloocan on December 22, 2003,
Sometime in 1999, Semirara requested HGL for permission to enjoining the DENR from enforcing its December 6, 2000
allow its trucks and other equipment to pass through the Order of Cancellation.
property covered by the FLGLA. HGL granted the request on
condition that Semirara's use would not violate the FLGLA. HGL had also filed a complaint against Semirara for Recovery
of Possession and Damages with Prayer for TRO and/or Writ
Subsequently, however, Semirara did the following without of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction with RTC Antique. The
HGL’s permission: (1) erected several buildings for RTC Antique granted the prayer for the issuance of a Writ of
administrative offices and employees' residences; (2) Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, (1) restraining Semirara
conducted blasting and excavation; (3) constructed an access from encroaching on the subject land or conducting any
road to Semirara's minesite in the Panaan Coal Reserve, activities in it, and (2) commanding it to restore possession of
Semirara; and (4) maintained a stockyard for the coal the subject land to HGL.
extracted from the mines.
So the land being used for cattle grazing was greatly
damaged, causing the decimation of HGL's cattle.
Semirara appealed before the CA in a petition for certiorari, possessor, HGL is therefore entitled to protection of its
but was denied. Hence the present Petition for Review on possession of the property and any disturbance of its
Certiorari before the SC. possession is a valid ground for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction in its favor. The right of HGL
ISSUE/S:
to the possession of the property is confirmed by Semirara
Whether the CA seriously erred or committed grave abuse of when it sought permission from HGL to use the property. In
discretion in affirming the Resolution of the RTC Antique contrast to HGL's clear legal right, Semirara's possession was
granting the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction merely by tolerance and permission of HGL.

RULING:
No. The urgency and necessity for the issuance of a writ of
mandatory injunction also cannot be denied, considering that
Under Article 539 of NCC, a lawful possessor is entitled to be HGL stands to suffer material and substantial injury
respected in his possession and any disturbance of (deprivation of the use and possession of the property which
possession is a ground for the issuance of a writ of preliminary affects HGL's business operations) as a result of Semirara’s
mandatory injunction to restore the possession. Semirara’s continuous intrusion into the property –
claim that the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction is improper because the instant case is allegedly Semirara occupied the property and prevented HGL from
one for accion publiciana deserves no consideration. The SC conducting its business way back when HGL still had the right
has already ruled before that prior to the promulgation of the to the use and possession of the property for another 10 years
NCC, it was deemed improper to issue a writ of preliminary (until 2009)
injunction where the party to be enjoined had already taken
Led to failure of HGL to operate its cattle-grazing business,
complete material possession of the property involved.
perceived as an inability by HGL to comply with the demands
However, with the enactment of Article 539, the plaintiff is now
of its customers casting doubt in its capacity to continue doing
allowed to avail of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to
business
restore him in his possession during the pendency of his
action to recover possession. Damage to HGL's business standing is irreparable injury
because no fair and reasonable redress can be had by HGL
It is likewise established that a writ of mandatory injunction is
insofar as the damage to its goodwill and business reputation
granted upon a showing that (a) the invasion of the right is
is concerned
material and substantial; (b) the right of complainant is clear
and unmistakable; and (c) there is an urgent and permanent
necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.
Semirara posits that FLGLA No. 184 had already been
HGL has a clear and unmistakable right to the possession of cancelled by the DENR. But as rightly held by the CA, the
the property. Under the FLGLA, HGL has the right to the lawful alleged cancellation of FLGLA No. 184 does not automatically
possession of the property for a period of 25 years. As lawful render the FLGLA invalid since the unilateral cancellation is
subject of a separate case still pending before the RTC the former condtition of Lot which they claimed to be part of
Caloocan. Notably, said court has issued a writ of preliminary the road.
injunction enjoining the DENR from enforcing its order of
despite the demand it remain unheeded prompting them to file
cancellation.
before the RTC afor injunction plus damages.
Respondents answered which prompted again petitioners to
The CA found that the construction of numerous buildings and file an amended complaiant and thus modifying their prayer
blasting activities by Semirara were done without HGL’s from preliminary injunction to a writ of Preliminary Mandatory
consent, but in blatant violation of its rights as the lessee of injunction.
the property. These unauthorized activities effectively deprived
After hearing petitioners’ application for a writ of preliminary
HGL of its right to use the property for cattle-grazing pursuant
mandatory injunction, Branch 44 of the San Fernando,
to the FLGLA. It cannot be denied that the continuance of
Pampanga RTC denied the same.
Semirara's possession during the pendency of the case for
recovery of possession will not only be unfair but will Hence a petition was filed in the Supreme Court.
undeniably work injustice to HGL. It would also cause
continuing damage and material injury to HGL. Thus, the CA ISSUE:
correctly upheld the issuance of the writ of preliminary Petitioners are entitled for a preliminary mandatory injunction.
mandatory injunction in favor of HGL.
HELD:
China Banking Corp. v. Co, G.R. No. 174569, [September
17, 2008], 587 PHIL 380-390 The supreme Court ruled that It is settled that the grant of a
preliminary mandatory injunction rests on the sound discretion
FACTS of the court, and the exercise of sound judicial discretion by
Petitioner China banking Corp. sold a lot located at San the lower court should not be interfered with except in cases of
Fernando Pampanga which was covered by a TCT to Joey manifest abuse.14
and Mary Jeannie Castro. And it also sold two other lots to It is likewise settled that a court should avoid issuing a writ of
petitioner – spouses Richard and Editha Nogoy. preliminary mandatory injunction which would effectively
The lots of castro and nogoy are commonly bound on the dispose of the main case without trial.15
southeastern side lot which is covered by a TCT in the name In the case at bar, petitioners base their prayer for preliminary
of herein respondent Benjamin Co. mandatory injunction
Co and siblings entered into a joint venture agreement with To be entitled to a writ of preliminary injunction, however, the
Three Kings Construction and realty Corporation. For the petitioners must establish the following requisites: (a) the
development of Northwoods Estates subdivion. invasion of the right sought to be protected is material and
Sometime in November of 2003, petitioners wrote to substantial; (b) the right of the complainant is clear and
respondents asking them to stop constructing wall and restore
unmistakable; and (c) there is an urgent and permanent Philippines temporarily absent therefrom or is a
necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.16 nonresident thereof, the requirement of prior or
contemporaneous service of summons shall not apply;
Since a preliminary mandatory injunction commands the 4. The application for a TRO shall thereafter be acted
performance of an act, it does not preserve the status quo and upon only after all parties are heard in a summary
is thus more cautiously regarded than a mere prohibitive hearing which shall be conducted within 24 hours after
injunction.17 Accordingly, the issuance of a writ of preliminary the sheriff’s return of service and/or the records are
mandatory injunction is justified only in a clear case, free from received by the branch selected by raffle and to which
doubt or dispute.18 When the complainant’s right is thus the records shall be transmitted immediately.
doubtful or disputed, he does not have a clear legal right and,
therefore, the issuance of injunctive relief is improper. CONTEMPORANEOUS SERVICE OF SUMMONS IN
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
GR:
D. WHEN WRIT MAY BE ISSUED
The enforcement of the writ of preliminary injunction must be
ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION preceded by or simultaneously accompanied by service of
A preliminary injunction or TRO may be granted only when: summons, copy of complaint, application and affidavits for the
1. The application in the action or proceeding is verified, preliminary injunction and the bond upon the adverse party.
and shows facts entitling the applicant to the relief
demanded; XPNs:
2. Unless exempted by the court the applicant files with
the court where the action or proceeding is pending, a Where the summons could not be served personally or by
bond executed to the party or person enjoined, in an substituted service despite diligent efforts, or the adverse party
amount to be fixed by the court (Sec. 4, Rule 58) (2006 is a resident of the Philippines temporarily absent therefrom or
Bar); is a nonresident thereof, the requirement of prior or
3. When an application for a writ of preliminary injunction contemporaneous service of summon shall not apply (Sec.
or a TRO is included in a complaint or any initiatory 4(c), Rule 58
pleading, the case, if filed in a multiple-sala court, shall
be raffled only after notice to and in the presence of the
adverse party or the person to be enjoined. In any
event, such notice shall be preceded, or Barayuga v. Adventist University of the Philippines, G.R.
contemporaneously accompanied by service of No. 168008, [August 17, 2011], 671 PHIL 403-423
summons, together with a copy of the complaint or
FACTS:
initiatory pleading and the applicant’s affidavit and
bond, upon the adverse party in the Philippines. AUP is a non-stock and non-profit domestic
However, where the summons could not be served educational institution. NPUM Executive Committee elected the
personally or by substituted service despite diligent members of the Board of Trustees of AUP, respondent Nestor
efforts, or the adverse party is a resident of the D. Dayson was elected Chairman while the petitioner was
chosen Secretary. Subsequently, the Board of Trustees AUP. The RTC did not require a bond. It further granted the writ
appointed the petitioner President of AUP. During his tenure, or of preliminary injunction. However, the CA rendered its decision
from November 11 to November 13, 2002, a group from the nullifying the RTC’s writ of preliminary injunction.
NPUM conducted an external performance audit, the audit
ISSUE:
concluded that he had committed serious violations of
fundamental rules and procedure in the disbursement and use Whether or not the petitioner had a right to the
of funds. the CGAS report that confirmed the initial findings of TRO and the injunctive writ issued by the RTC?
the auditors and informed the petitioner of the findings and
required him to explain. HELD:

After several meetings with the Board of trustees, No, A valid writ of preliminary injunction rests on
the members voted to remove him as President because of his the weight of evidence submitted by the plaintiff establishing: (a)
serious violations of fundamental rules and procedures in the a present and unmistakable right to be protected; (b) the acts
disbursement and use of funds as revealed by the special audit. against which the injunction is directed violate such right; and (c)
In turn, he handed to Chairman Dayson a letter requesting two a special and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent
weeks within which to seek a reconsideration, stating that he serious damages. In the absence of a clear legal right, the
needed time to obtain supporting documents because he was issuance of the injunctive writ constitutes grave abuse of
then attending to his dying mother. The Board of Directors discretion and will result to nullification thereof. Where the
granted petitioner’s request for reconsideration. However, complainant’s right is doubtful or disputed, injunction is not
petitioner requested to remain in his position and promised to proper. The possibility of irreparable damage sans proof of an
leave should he again commit such violations to which the actual existing right is not a ground for a preliminary injunction. It
Board denied such request. Petitioner was served the notice of is clear to us, based on the foregoing principles guiding the
the denial on him the next day, but he refused to receive the issuance of the TRO and the writ of injunction, that the issuance
notice, simply saying Alam ko na yan. of the assailed order constituted patently grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the RTC, and that the CA rightly set
Petitioner brought his suit for injunction and damages in the aside the order of the RTC.
RTC, with prayer for the issuance of a TRO, alleging that the
Board of Trustees had relieved him as President without valid Petitioner rested his claim for injunction mainly
grounds despite his five-year term; that the Board of Trustees upon his representation that he was entitled to serve for five
had thereby acted in bad faith; and that his being denied ample years as President of AUP under the Constitution, By-Laws and
and reasonable time to present his evidence deprived him of his Working Policy of the General Conference of the Seventh Day
right to due process. The RTC used the mutual agreement as its Adventists. Yet, the document had no evidentiary value. For the
basis to issue a status quo order. The RTC issued the TRO RTC to base its issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction on
enjoining the respondents and persons acting for and in their the mere photocopies of the document, especially that such
behalf from implementing the resolution removing him as document was designed to play a crucial part in the resolution of
President issued by the Board of Trustees and enjoining the the decisive issue on the length of the term of office of the
interim committee from performing the functions of President of petitioner, was gross error. Even assuming that the petitioner
had properly authenticated the photocopies of the Bluebook, the Injunction).
provisions contained therein did not vest the right to an office in
him. An unfilled model form creates or establishes no rights in Ruling:
favor of anyone. A writ of preliminary injunction and a TRO are injunctive reliefs
and preservative remedies for the protection of substantive
Australian Professional Realty, Inc. v. Municipality of Padre rights and interests.[12] An application for the issuance of a writ
Garcia, Batangas, G.R. No. 183367, [March 14, 2012], 684 of preliminary injunction and/or TRO may be granted upon the
PHIL 283-295 filing of a verified application showing facts entitling the
applicant to the relief demanded.
Facts:
In 1993, fire razed to the ground the old public market of A TRO issues only if the matter is of such extreme urgency that
respondent Municipality of Padre Garcia, Batangas. The grave injustice and
municipal government, through its then Municipal Mayor irreparable injury would arise unless it is issued immediately.
Eugenio Under Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rule of Court,[14] a TRO may
Gutierrez, invited petitioner Australian Professional Realty, Inc. be issued only if it appears from the facts shown by affidavits or
(APRI) to rebuild the public by the verified application that great or irreparable injury would
Market and construct a shopping center. a Memorandum of be inflicted on the applicant before the writ of preliminary
Agreement (MOA)[2] was executed between petitioner APRI injunction could be heard.
and Respondent. Under the MOA, APRI undertook to construct
a shopping complex in the 5,000-square-meter area. In return, Thus, to be entitled to the injunctive writ, petitioners must show
APRI acquired the exclusive right to operate, manage, and that
lease stall spaces for a period of 25 years. 1. there exists a clear and unmistakable right to be
protected;
Victor Reyes was elected as municipal mayor of respondent 2. this right is directly threatened by an act sought to be
initiated a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Memorandum enjoined;
of Agreement with Damages before the RTC. 3. the invasion of the right is material and substantial; and
4. there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to
the RTC, rendered in favor of the plaintiff as against the prevent serious and irreparable damage.
respondents. Then A Writ of Execution was thus issued. After
learning of the adverse judgment, petitioners filed a Petition for In this case, no grave abuse of discretion can be imputed to the
Relief from Judgment CA. It did not exercise judgment in a capricious and whimsical
manner or exercise power in an arbitrary or despotic manner.
Issue:
A perusal of the Motion for Injunction and its accompanying
whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Affidavit filed before the CA shows that petitioners rely on their
petitioners' Motion for the alleged right to the full and faithful execution of the MOA.
Issuance of Status Quo Order and Motion for Issuance of However, while the enforcement of the Writ of Execution, which
Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary would nullify the implementation of the MOA, is manifestly
Injunction (Motion for prejudicial to petitioners' interests, they have failed to establish
in their Petition that they possess a clear legal right that merits
the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. Their rights under
the MOA have already been declared inferior or inexistent in 1. A writ of preliminary injunction cannot be enforced
relation to respondent in the RTC case, under a judgment against a person not a party in the case.
that has become final and executory. At the very least, their 2. To be entitled to a preliminary injunction to enjoin the
rights under the MOA are precisely disputed by respondent. enforcement of a law assailed to be unconstitutional, the
Hence, there can be no "clear and... unmistakable" right in favor party must establish that it will suffer irreparable harm in
of petitioners to warrant the issuance of a writ of injunction. the absence of injunctive relief and must demonstrate
Where the complainant's right or title is doubtful or disputed, that it is likely to succeed on the merits, or that there are
injunction is not proper. sufficiently serious questions going to the merits and the
balance of hardships tips decidedly in its favor.
The general rule is that after a judgment has gained finality, it 3. preliminary injunction may be issued in cases pending before
becomes the ministerial duty administrative bodies as long as the right to self-incrimination
of the court to order its execution. No court should interfere, by guaranteed by the Bill of rights is in danger cannot be applied,
injunction or otherwise, to where there is no intended legislation is involved and the
restrain such execution. The rule, however, admits of subject matter of the inquiry was more within the province of
exceptions, such as the legislature rather than the courts.
following:
1. when facts and circumstances later transpire that would Executive Secretary v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131719,
render execution inequitable or unjust; or [May 25, 2004], 473 PHIL 27-64
2. when there is a change in the situation of the parties that
DOCTRINE: 
may warrant an injunctive relief.
To be entitled to a preliminary injunction to enjoin the
enforcement of a law assailed to be unconstitutional, the party
In this case, after the finality of the RTC Decision, there
must establish that it will suffer irreparable harm in the absence
were no supervening events or changes in the situation of the
of injunctive relief and must demonstrate that it is likely to
parties that would entail the
succeed on the merits, or that there are sufficiently serious
injunction of the Writ of Execution.
questions going to the merits and the balance of hardships tips
decidedly in its favor.
E. AGAINST WHOM IS INJUNCTION ISSUED
FACTS:
RULE 58 Section 3 subpar.
The Omnibus Rules and Regulations Implementing the
Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act of 1995 was,
c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening,
thereafter, published in the April 7, 1996 issue of the Manila
or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done Bulletin. However, even before the law took effect, the Asian
some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the Recruitment Council Philippine Chapter, Inc. (ARCO-Phil.) filed,
applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and on July 17, 1995, a petition for declaratory relief under Rule 63
tending to render the judgment ineffectual of the Rules of Court with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City to declare as unconstitutional Section 2, paragraph (g), relief. To be entitled to a preliminary injunction to enjoin the
Section 6, paragraphs (a) to (j), (l) and (m), Section 7, enforcement of a law assailed to be unconstitutional, the party
paragraphs (a) and (b), and Sections 9 and 10 of the law, with a must establish that it will suffer irreparable harm in the absence
plea for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of injunctive relief and must demonstrate that it is likely to
of preliminary injunction enjoining the respondents therein from succeed on the merits, or that there are sufficiently serious
enforcing the assailed provisions of the law. The ARCO-Phil. questions going to the merits and the balance of hardships tips
alleged that Rep. Act No. 8042 was self-executory and that no decidedly in its favor. The higher standard reflects judicial
implementing rules were needed. It prayed that the court issues deference toward "legislation or regulations developed through
a temporary restraining order to enjoin the enforcement of presumptively reasoned democratic processes." Moreover, an
Section 6, paragraphs (a) to (m) on illegal recruitment, Section 7 injunction will alter, rather than maintain, the status quo, or will
on penalties for illegal recruitment, and Section 9 on venue of provide the movant with substantially all the relief sought and
criminal actions for illegal recruitments.  that relief cannot be undone even if the defendant prevails at a
In their answer to the petition, the petitioners alleged, trial on the merits.
inter alia, that (a) the respondent has no cause of action for a  In litigations between governmental and private parties,
declaratory relief; (b) the petition was premature as the rules courts go much further both to give and withhold relief in
implementing Rep. Act No. 8042 not having been released as furtherance of public interest than they are accustomed to go
yet; (c) the assailed provisions do not violate any provisions of when only private interests are involved. Before the plaintiff may
the Constitution; (d) the law was approved by Congress in the be entitled to injunction against future enforcement, he is
exercise of the police power of the State; and, (e) the petitioner burdened to show some substantial hardship. The fear or
fails to establish the requisites for the issuance of a writ of chilling-effect of the assailed penal provisions of the law on the
preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the law and members of the respondent does not by itself justify prohibiting
the rules and regulations issued implementing the same. the State from enforcing them against those whom the State
Afterwards, the trial court issued an order granting the believes in good faith to be punishable under the laws. In this
petitioner’s plea for a writ of preliminary injunction upon posting case, there is no allegation in the amended petition or evidence
of a bond. The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the adduced by the respondent that the officers and/or employees
Court of Appeals assailing the order and the writ of preliminary of its members had been threatened with any indictments for
injunction issued by the trial court.  violations of the penal provisions of Rep. Act No. 8042. The
respondent merely speculated and surmised that licensed and
ISSUE: registered recruitment agencies would close shop and stop
Is the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction business operations because of the assailed penal provisions of
against the Executive Department valid? the law. A writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the
enforcement of penal laws cannot be based on such conjectures
RULING: or speculations. 
The matter of whether to issue a writ of preliminary
injunction or not is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial
court. The possible unconstitutionality of a statute, on its face, Mabayo Farms, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140058
does not of itself justify an injunction against good faith attempts (Resolution), [August 1, 2002], 435 PHIL 112-120
to enforce it, unless there is a showing of bad faith, harassment, DOCTRINE:
or any other unusual circumstance that would call for equitable
 A writ of preliminary injunction cannot be enforced property. The aforementioned writ was also served upon
against a person not a party in the case. The proper remedy is respondent who was occupying a portion of Lot No. 1379.
to implead him/her in the main case so that the injunction can be
On February 24, 1999, private respondent filed a special civil
properly enforce to a party not included in the complaint.
action for certiorari docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 51375 with the
FACTS: Court of Appeals. Private respondent averred that he only
learned about the writ of preliminary injunction on February 16,
On August 22, 1969, the Bureau of Lands declared Francisco
1999, when he secured a copy of the order. He claimed that he
Domingo, Reynaldo Florida, Cornelio Pilipino and Severino
was an innocent purchaser for value of the property from
Vistan, lawful possessors of Lot 1379 of the Morong, Bataan
Francisco, Armando, and Conchita, all surnamed Alejandro and
Cadastre. Lot 1379 consists of 144 hectares. Domingo, Florida,
the injunction prevented him from using his property. He alleged
Pilipino and Vistan through their forebears and by themselves
that he was not a party to Civil Case No. 6695 and that it was
had been in open, notorious, and exclusive possession of
grave abuse of discretion for the trial court to enforce the
portions of Lot 1379 since 1933 in the concept of owners. The
injunctive writ against him since it did not have jurisdiction over
Bureau then directed them to confirm their titles over the
him.
property by filing the appropriate applications for the portions of
the property respectively occupied by them.1âwphi1.nêt ISSUE:
In October 1970, petitioner bought the respective portions of WON a preliminary injunction be imposed against a non-party
Domingo, Florida, Pilipino and Vistan, totaling 69,932 square
RULING:
meters and entered into a compromise settlement with six other
persons occupying the property, whose applications had been NO, A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of
rejected by the Bureau. The case was decided in favor of the an action prior to final judgment, requiring a person to refrain
petitioner. from a particular act. As an ancillary or preventive remedy, a writ
of preliminary injunction may therefore be resorted to by a party
In June 1997, a group of occupants entered the land, destroyed
to protect or preserve his rights and for no other purpose during
the fences and drove away livestock owned by petitioner.
the pendency of the principal action. Its object is to preserve the
On October 9, 1997, petitioner filed a complaint for injunction status quo until the merits of the case can be heard.It is not a
with damages, with a prayer for a temporary restraining order, cause of action in itself but merely a provisional remedy, an
docketed as Civil Case No. 6695, with the RTC of Balanga, adjunct to a main suit.Thus, a person who is not a party in the
Bataan. Named as defendants were Juanito Infante, Domingo main suit, like private respondent in the instant case, cannot be
Infante, Lito Mangalidan, Jaime Aquino, John Doe, Peter Doe, bound by an ancillary writ, such as the writ of preliminary
and Richard Doe.The trial court issued the temporary restraining injunction issued against the defendants in Civil Case No. 6695.
order (TRO) and on January 16, 1998, the sheriff served copies He cannot be affected by any proceeding to which he is a
on the defendants. Thereafter trial court issued a writ of stranger. The proper remedy so that the injunctive relief be
preliminary injunction restraining the defendants or persons made applicable to the private respondent is to implead the
acting on their behalf from entering and cultivating the disputed latter as an additional defendant.
 Senate Blue Ribbon Committee v. Majaducon, G.R. Nos. Whether or not respondent Judge Jose Majaducon committed
136760 & 138378, [July 29, 2003], 455 PHIL 61-76 grave abuse of discretion when he dismissed the petition for
prohibition and issued the writ of preliminary injunction.
FACTS:
HELD:
Senator Blas Ople filed resolution No. 157 directing the
committee on National Defense and Security to conduct an The assailed resolution of respondent Judge Majaducon was
inquiry in aid of legislation into the charges of the then Sec. of issued without legal basis. The principle of separation of powers
Defense Orlando Mercado that a group of active and retired essentially means that legislation belongs to Congress,
military officers were organizing a coup d’état prevent the execution to the Executive, and settlement of legal controversies
administration of former president Estrada and probing alleged to the Judiciary. Each is prevented from invading the domain of
fun irregularities in the AFP. the others. When the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee served
subpoena on respondent Flaviano to appear and testify before it
The Senate President referred the two resolutions to the in connection with its investigation of the alleged misuse and
Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and mismanagement of the AFP-RSBS funds, it did so pursuant to
Investigations (Blue Ribbon Committee) and the Committee on its authority to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation. This is
National Defense and Security. clearly provided in Article 6, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution:

During the public hearings by the Blue-Ribbon Committee, it The Senate of the House of Representatives or any of its
appeared that the AFP-RSBS purchased a lot from Atty. Nilo J. respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation
Flaviano worth P10,500 per square meter. However, the deed of in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The
sale filed with the Register of Deeds indicated that the purchase rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall
price of the lot was only P3,000 per square meter. The be respected.
Committee caused the service of a subpoena to Atty. Flaviano,
directing him to appear and testify before it. Respondent refused Hence, the RTC of General Santos City, or any court for that
to appear and filed a petition for prohibition and preliminary matter, had no authority to prohibit the Committee from requiring
injunction with prayer for temporary restraining order with the respondent to appear and testify before it.
RTC of General Santos City. The trial court issued a TRO
directing the committee to cease and desist from proceeding Also, Flaviano’s contention that preliminary injunction may issue
with the inquiry. The Committee filed a motion to dismiss on the in cases pending before administrative bodies such as the
ground of lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a valid cause of Ombudsman or the Office of the Prosecutor as long as the right
action. The Trial Court denied the motion to dismiss. Hence, this
to self-incrimination guaranteed by the Bill of Rights is in danger,
petition for certiorari alleging that Judge Majaducon committed
grave abuse of discretion and acted without or in excess of should not be upheld. The ruling in Bengzon vs. Blue Ribbon
jurisdiction. Committee cited by the respondent does not apply in this case.
The factual circumstances therein are different from those in the
ISSUE: case at bar. In Bengzon, no intended legislation was involved
and the subject matter of the inquiry was more within the
province of the courts rather than the legislature. On the other
hand, there was in this case a clear legislative purpose, and this which a TRO was granted. The same complaint was later
is to look into the reported misuse and mismanagement of the amended to implead the LA and the laborers. The laborers
AFP-RSBS funds, with the intention of enacting appropriate moved for the dismissal of the civil case on the ground of lack of
legislation to protect the rights and interests of the officers and jurisdiction. 
members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
RTC dismissed the third-party claim on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction, as the original case was under the jurisdiction of the
Deltaventures Resources, Inc. v. Cabato, G.R. No. 118216, NLRC
[March 9, 2000], 384 PHIL 252-263
Issue:
Doctrine: Whether or not the trial court may take cognizance of the
Jurisdiction once acquired is not lost upon the instance of the complaint filed by petitioner and consequently provide the
parties but continues until the case is terminated. Whatever injunction relief sought.
irregularities attended the issuance and execution of the alias
writ of execution should be referred to the same administrative Ruling:
tribunal which rendered the decision.24 This is because any No, the RTC cannot take cognizance.
court which issued a writ of execution has the inherent power,
for the advancement of justice, to correct errors of its ministerial The complainant was in effect a motion to quash the writ of
officers and to control its own processes. execution of a decision rendered on a case properly within the
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter, to wit: Illegal Dismissal and
Facts: Unfair Labor Practice. Considering the factual setting, it is then
The Private Respondents in this case filed as case of Illegal logical to conclude that the subject matter of the third party claim
dismissal and ULP in the NLRC. A favorable judgment was is but an incident of the labor case, a matter beyond the
rendered and a Motion for the Execution Judgment was file in jurisdiction of regional trial courts.
the NLRC. The LA issued a Writ of Execution, subsequently the
sheriff enforced the writ by garnishing the properties of the labor Petitioner should have filed its third-party claim before the Labor
case respondents. When the properties were not enough to Arbiter, from whom the writ of execution originated, before
satisfy the award, the Sheriff proceeded to levy the real property instituting said civil case.
of Robert Ongpin, a respondent.
Traders Royal Bank v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R.
On July 27, 1994, a month before the scheduled auction sale, No. 66321, [October 31, 1984], 218 PHIL 143-151
herein DRI filed before the Commission a third-party claim
asserting ownership over the property levied upon and subject Doctrine:
of the Sheriff notice of sale. The Rivera thus issued an order Generally, the rule that no court has the power to interfere by
directing the suspension of the auction sale until the merits of injunction with the judgments or decrees of a concurrent or
DRI's claim has been resolved. coordinate jurisdiction having equal power to grant the injunctive
relief sought by injunction, is applied in cases where no third-
A month after, DRI filed a complaint of injunction and damages party claimant is involved, in order to prevent one court from
against the Sheriff with the RTC of La Trinidad, Benguet in nullifying the judgment or process of another court of the same
rank or category, a power which devolves upon the proper
appellate court. Issue:
Whether or not Bulacan RTC acted without jurisdiction in issuing
Facts:  a writ of preliminary injunction filed by La Tondena? Whether or
not such order constitutes undue and illegal interference with
Herein petitioner Traders Royal Bank filed a suit against the the exercise by the Pasay RTC of its coordinate and co-equal
Remco Alcohol Distillery (REMCO) before Pasay RTC for the authority.
recovery of the sum of P2.3M obtaining therein a writ of
preliminary attachment. The deputy sheriff then levied the Ruling:
barrels of aged alcohol found within the premises of said The petition is devoid of merit.
REMCO. A third party claim was filed by respondent La There is no question that the action filed by private respondent
Tondena claiming ownership of said property. La Tondena is sanction by the Rules of Court (Rule 57 Sec 14) -
“But nothing herein contained shall prevent such third person
Respondent then filed a complaint-in-intervention alleging that it from vindicating his claim to the property by proper action.”
made advances to Remco which totalled P3M and remains
outstanding and that the attached properties are owned by the The foregoing rule explicitly sets forth the remedy that may be
respondent. Subsequently, respondent filed a ‘Motion to availed of by a person who claims to be the owner of property
Withdraw’ the alcohol and molasses from the Remco and which levied upon by attachment, viz: to lodge a third- party claim with
motion was granted by Pasay RTC. However, the said order the sheriff, and if the attaching creditor posts an indemnity bond
was reconsidered by Pasay RTC declaring that alcohol not yet in favor of the sheriff, to file a separate and independent action
withdrawn remains in the ownership of Remco. It also denied to vindicate his claim. And this precisely was the remedy
the respondent's motion to intervene. A motion for MR was filed resorted to by private respondent La Tondeña when it filed the
but later withdrawn by the respondent. vindicatory action before the Bulacan RTC.

Later, respondent La Tondena instituted before the Bulacan Generally, the rule that no court has the power to interfere by
RTC claim of ownership over the attached properties and injunction with the judgments or decrees of a concurrent or
likewise prayed for Preliminary Mandatory and Prohibitory coordinate jurisdiction having equal power to grant the injunctive
Injunction. An opposition /motion to dismiss was filed by relief sought by injunction, is applied in cases where no third-
petitioner. This was followed by the respondent's opposition to party claimant is involved, in order to prevent one court from
the petitioner's motion to dismiss. Hearings were held and order nullifying the judgment or process of another court of the same
was issued by respondent trial judge declaring La Tondena to rank or category, a power which devolves upon the proper
be the owner of the disputed alcohol and granting the latter’s appellate court. The purpose of the rule is to avoid conflict of
injunctive relief. power between different courts of coordinate jurisdiction and to
bring about a harmonious and smooth functioning of their
Petitioner filed with respondent IAC a petition for certiorari and proceedings.
prohibition with application for a writ of preliminary injunction to
annul and set aside the decision of Bulacan RTC with In Manila Herald Publishing Co., Inc. vs. Ramos, it was held that
respondent IAC. IAC dismissed the petition and its MR. Hence, “It is true of course that property in custody of the law cannot be
this petition. interfered without the permission of the proper court, and
property legally attached is property in custodia legis. But for the
reason just stated, this rule is confined to cases where the Republic v. Evangelista, G.R. No. 156015, [August 11, 2005],
property belongs to the defendant or one in which the defendant 504 PHIL 115-125
has proprietary interest. When the sheriff acting beyond the
bounds of his office seizes a stranger's property, the rule does Facts:
not apply and interference with his custody is not interference
with another court's order of attachment.” Calimlim, representing the Republic of the Philippines as then
head of the Intelligence Service of the AFP and the Presidential
The denial or dismissal of a third-party claim to property levied Security Group, entered into a MOA with one Ciriaco Reyes
upon cannot operate to bar a subsequent independent action by granting Reyes a permit to hunt for treasure in a land in Bigte,
the claimant to establish his right to the property even if he failed Norzagaray, Bulacan. Calimlim assigned about 80 military
to appeal from the order denying his original third-party claim. personnel to guard the area and encamp thereon to intimidate
Legaspi and other occupants of the area from going near the
F. GROUNDS FOR ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY subject land.
INJUNCTION
Legaspi executed a SPA appointing his nephew (Gutierrez) who
GROUNDS FOR ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY INJUCTION was given the power to deal with the treasure hunting activities
on Legaspi’s land and to file charges against those who may
RULE 58 - Section 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary enter it without the latter’s authority. Gutierrez filed a case for
injunction. — A preliminary injunction may be granted when it is damages and injunction against petitioners for illegally entering
established: Legaspi’s land.

(a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, Exec. Judge Tria Tirona issued a 72-hour TRO against
and the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining petitioners. The case was subsequently raffled to the RTC
the commission or continuance of the act or acts Quezon City, then presided by public respondent Judge
complained of, or in requiring the performance of an act Evangelista who issued another 72-hour TRO and a summary
or acts either for a limited period or perpetually; hearing for its extension.

(b) That the commission, continuance or non- Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss since the SPA was already
performance of the act or acts complained of during the revoked and a Motion for Inhibition of the respondent judge on
litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or the ground of alleged partiality in favor of Legaspi.

(c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, TC granted Legaspi’s application for a writ of preliminary
threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or injunction on the ff. grounds: (1) there is an urgent need to
suffering to be done some act or acts probably in maintain the status quo to prevent serious damage to Legaspi’s
violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the land; and (2) the SPA granted to Gutierrez continues to be valid.
subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render CA affirmed the decision.
the judgment ineffectual. (3a)
Issue:
 damages. It was necessary for the trial court to issue the writ of
Whether the complaint against petitioners invalidates the preliminary injunction during the pendency of the main case in
issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction. No. order to preserve the rights and interests of private respondents
Legaspi and Gutierrez.
Ruling:

Section 3, Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides Land Bank of the Phils. v. Continental Watchman Agency
that a writ of preliminary injunction may be issued when it is Inc., G.R. No. 136114, [January 22, 2004], 465 PHIL 607-
established: 618
G. GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION TO, OR FOR THE
xxx
DISSOLUTION OF INJUNCTION OR RESTRAINING
ORDER
(b) that the commission, continuance or non-performance of the
act or acts complained of during the litigation would probably
work injustice to the applicant; or
RULE 58 - Section 6. Grounds for objection to, or for
motion of dissolution of, injunction or restraining order. —
(c) that a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening,
or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done,
1. The application for injunction or restraining order may be
some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the
denied, upon a showing of its insufficiency.
applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and
tending to render the judgment ineffectual.
2. The injunction or restraining order may also be denied,
or, if granted, may be dissolved, on other grounds upon
It is crystal clear that at the hearing for the issuance of a writ of
affidavits of the party or person enjoined, which may be
preliminary injunction, mere prima facie evidence is needed to
opposed by the applicant also by affidavits.
establish the applicant’s rights or interests in the subject matter
of the main action. It is not required that the applicant should
3. It may further be denied, or if granted, may be dissolved,
conclusively show that there was a violation of his rights as this
if it appears after hearing that although the applicant is
issue will still be fully litigated in the main case. Thus, an
entitled to the injunction or restraining order, the issuance
applicant for a writ is required only to show that he has an
or continuance thereof, as the case may be, would cause
ostensible right to the final relief prayed for in his complaint.
irreparable damage to the party or person enjoined while
the applicant can be fully compensated for such damages
It was established, prima facie, that Legaspi has a right to
as he may suffer, and the former files a bond in an
peaceful possession of his land, pendente lite. Legaspi had title
amount fixed by the court conditioned that he will pay all
to the subject land. It was likewise established that the diggings
damages which the applicant may suffer by the denial or
were conducted by petitioners in the enclosed area of Legaspi’s
the dissolution of the injunction or restraining order.
land. Whether the land fenced by Gutierrez and claimed to be
included in the land of Legaspi covered an area beyond that
4. If it appears that the extent of the preliminary injunction or
which is included in the title of Legaspi is a factual issue still
restraining order granted is too great, it may be modified
subject to litigation and proof by the parties in the main case for
 1. That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and quo should be that existing at the time of the filing of the case. A
the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the preliminary injunction should not establish new relations
commission or continuance of the act or acts complained between the parties, but merely maintain or re-establish the pre-
of, or in requiring the performance of an act or acts either existing relationship between them.
for a limited period or perpetually;
2. That the commission, continuance or nonperformance of Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the dissolution of the
the act or acts complained of during the litigation would writ of injunction can accordingly be issued.
probably work injustice to the applicant; or The well-known rule is that the matter of issuance of a
3. That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, writ of preliminary injunction is addressed to the sound judicial
threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or discretion of the trial court, and its action shall not be disturbed
suffering to be done some act or acts probably in on appeal unless it is demonstrated that it acted without
violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or, otherwise, in grave
subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render abuse of discretion.
the judgment ineffectual (Sec. 3, Rule 58).
FACTS:
Requisites of preliminary injunction whether mandatory or Respondent International Exchange Bank filed a collection suit
prohibitory injunction with application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
1. The applicant must have a clear and unmistakable right, attachment against Alberto Looyuko and Jimmy T. Go in the
that is a right in esse; RTC of Makati. The trial court rendered a Decision in favor of
2. There is a material and substantial invasion of such right; respondent bank. A Writ of Execution on the judgment against
3. There is an urgent need for the writ to prevent irreparable Mr. Looyuko and  Mr. Go was implemented. Petitioner-spouses
injury to the applicant; and Alfredo and Shirley Yap filed a Complaint for Injunction with
4. No other ordinary, speedy, and adequate remedy exists Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary
to prevent the infliction of irreparable injury (Marquez v. Injunction with the RTC of Pasig City, claiming that some of the
Sanchez, 515 SCRA 577). properties involved in the auction sale incompliance with the
execution, are already owned by them. RTC of Pasig City
denied the application for a writ of preliminary injunction.
Spouses Yap v. International Exchange Bank, G.R. No. Thereafter, the public auction took place and the respondent
175145, [March 28, 2008], 573 PHIL 515-532 sheriff herein issued a Certificate of Sale stating that the subject
properties had been sold at public auction in favor of respondent
Doctrine: bank. Petitioners filed with the RTC of Pasig City the instant
A preliminary injunction is merely a provisional remedy, case for Annulment of Sheriff’s Auction Sale Proceedings and
an adjunct to the main case subject to the latter’s outcome. Its Certificate of Sale. An order was issued by Judge Janolo
sole objective is to preserve the status quo until the trial court granting petitioners’ application for issuance of a writ of
hears fully the merits of the case. preliminary injunction. Court of Appeals held that no grave
abuse of discretion was committed by Judge Janolo in
The status quo is the last actual, peaceable and promulgating the order. The Supreme Court dismissed the
uncontested situation which precedes a controversy. The status petition for certiorari filed before them by the petitioner.
Subsequently, respondents filed with the RTC of Pasig City, counter-bond has been posted. In the given case, since the
Branch 264, an Omnibus Motion (To Resolve Motion to Dismiss respondent was able to prove that they can pay the counterbond
Complaint and/or Dissolve Injunction) praying that their pending and presented that they will suffer irreparable damage, hence,
Motion for Reconsideration which seeks for the dismissal of the the recalling and dissolving the Writ of Preliminary Injunction
case be resolved and/or the Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated can be affirmed.
previously issued be dissolved. Thereafter, the trial court
recalled and dissolved the Writ of Preliminary Injunction and
ordered respondents to post a counter-bond amounting to ten H. DURATION OF TRO
million pesos. RTC issued a Writ Dissolving Preliminary
Injunction. Court of Appeals resolved to dismiss outright the When Available
Petition for Certiorari for failure of petitioners to file a motion for If great or irreparable injury would result to the applicant before
reconsideration.  the matter can be heard on notice, the court may issue ex parte
a TRO, effective only for 20 days from service on the party
sought to be enjoined.
ISSUE: May the trial court recall and dissolve the preliminary
injunction it issued despite the rulings of the Court of Appeals Executive Judge/ Presiding Judge
and by this Court that its issuance was not tainted with grave If the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer
abuse of discretion? grave injustice and irreparable injury: 1. TRO effective only for
72 hours from issuance. 2. Its effectivity may be extended after
conducting a summary hearing within the 72 hour period until
RULING: the application for preliminary injunction can be heard (2006
YES, it may be dissolved. Rules of Court provide that, a Bar).
preliminary injunction may be dissolved if two conditions concur:
first, the court in the exercise of its discretion, finds that the CA or any of its members
continuance of the injunction would cause great damage to the Effective for 60 days from service on the party sought to be
defendant, while the plaintiff can be fully compensated for such enjoined
damages as he may suffer; second, the defendant files a
counter-bond. In the case at bar, the trial court, after hearing, SC or any of its members
found that respondents duly showed that they would suffer great Effective until further orders
and irreparable injury if the injunction shall continue to exist. As
to the second condition, the trial court likewise found that PERIOD OF TWENTY DAYS NON EXTENDIBLE
respondents were willing to post a counter-bond which could
cover the damages that petitioners may suffer in case the The rule against the non-extendibility of the 20-day effectivity of
judgment turns out to be adverse to them. The Order of the trial a TRO is absolute if issued by RTC. The failure of the trial court
court to recall and dissolve the preliminary injunction is subject to fix the period in the TRO does not convert it to a preliminary
to the filing and approval of the counter-bond that it ordered. injunction (Bacolod City vs. Labayen, G.R. No. 157494,
Failure to post the required counter-bond will necessarily lead to December 10, 2004).
the non-dissolution of the preliminary injunction. The Order of
Dissolution cannot be implemented until and unless the required DUTY OF THE COURT WITHIN 20-DAY PERIOD:
 1. The court must order said party or person to show cause Nerwin Industries Corp. v. PNOC-Energy Development
why the injunction should not be granted. Corp., G.R. No. 167057, [April 11, 2012], 685 PHIL 412-429
2. Also, within the same period, the court shall determine
whether or not the preliminary injunction shall be granted
and then issue the corresponding order (Australian FACTS:
Professional, Inc. vs. Municipality of Padre Garcia, G.R.
No. 183367, March 14, 2012). In 1999, National Electrification Administration (NEA) published
an invitation to pre-qualify and to bid for a contract known as
I. IN RELATION TO RA 8975, BAN ON ISSUANCE OF IPB No. 80 for the supply and delivery of about 60,000 pieces of
TRO OR WRIT OF INJUNCTION IN CASES wood poles and 20,000 of cross-arms. Nerwin was one of the
INVOLVING GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE bidders The contract was awarded to him being the lowest
PROJECT bidder. However, NEA’s board of directors passed a resolution
reducing by 50% the material requirements for IPB 80 to which
Preliminary injunction or TRO in cases involving government Nerwin protested. A losing bidder, Tri State and Pacific Synergy
infrastructure projects filed a complaint alleging the documents Nerwin submitted
during the pre-qualification bid were falsified. Finding a way to
GR: nullify the bid, NEA sought the opinion of Gov’t Corporate
Counsel who upheld the eligibility of Nerwin. NEA allegedly held
No court, except the Supreme Court shall issue any TRO, negotiations with other bidders for IPB 80 contract. As a result,
preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction Nerwin filed a complaint with prayer of injunction which was
against the government, or any of its subdivisions, officials or grabted by RTC Manila. PNOC – Energy Dev’t Corp issued an
any person or entity, whether public or private acting under the invitation to pre-qualify and bid for O-ILAW project. Nerwin filed
government direction, to restrain, prohibit or compel the a civil action in RTC alleging that it was an attempt to subject
following acts: portions of IPB 80 to another bidding. He prayed for TRO to
1. Acquisition, clearance and development of the rightof- enjoin respondents to the proposed bidding. Respondents
way and/or site or location of any national government averred that this is in violation of a rule that government
project; infrastructure are not subject to TROs. RTC granted TRO
2. Bidding or awarding of contract/ project of the national nevertheless. CA ruled in favor of respondents. Hence, this
government as defined under Sec. 2 hereof; petition.
3. Commencement prosecution, execution, implementation,
operation of any such contract or project; ISSUE:
4. Termination or rescission of any such contract/project;
and W/N CA erred in dismissing the case pursuant to RA 8975
5. The undertaking or authorization of any other lawful which prohibits issuance of TRO except SC to gov’t projects
activity necessary for such contract/project (Sec. 3, RA HELD:
8975).
Decision of CA affirmed. Sec 3 of RA 8975 clearly prohibits
issuance of TRO, preliminary injunctions, and preliminary
mandatory injunctions against gov’
A 8975 merely supersedes PD 1818 which earlier underscored
the prohibition to courts from issuing restraining orders or
preliminary injunctions in cases involving infrastructure or
National Resources Development projects of, and public utilities
operated by, the government. This law was, in fact, earlier
upheld to have such a mandatory nature by the Supreme Court
in an administrative case against a Judge.
Moreover, to bolster the significance of the said prohibition, the
Supreme Court had the same embodied in its Administrative
Circular No. 11-2000 which reiterates the ban on issuance of
TRO or writs of Preliminary Prohibitory or Mandatory Injunction
in cases involving Government Infrastructure Projects.

J. RULE ON PRIOR OR CONTEMPORANEOUS

SERVICE OF SUMMONS IN RELATION TO
ATTACHMENT

GR:

Just as in levy on preliminary attachment, there must be proof of

prior or contemporaneous service of summons with a copy of
the complaint or initiatory pleading and applicant’s affidavit and
bond on the adverse party (Regalado, 2010).

XPN:

When summons could not be served upon the defendant either

in person or by substituted service despite diligent efforts or
when the defendant is temporarily out of the Philippines or when
he is a nonresident, the requirement of prior contemporaneous
service shall not apply

CASILAn VS IBANEZ
 B. RECEIVER DISTINGUISHED FROM A SHERIFF

MEANING OF RECIEVER – a receiver is not an agent or

representative of any party to the action. He is an officer of the
court exercising his function exercising his functionin the interest
of of neither plaintiff nor defendant, but for the common benefit
IV. RECEIVERSHIP of all parties in interest. He performs his duties. He performs his
duties subject to the control of the court and every question
A. DEFINITION involved in the receivership may be determined by the court
taking cognizance of the receivership proceedings.
It is a provisional remedy wherein the court appoints a
representative to preserve, administer, dispose of and prevent MEANING OF SHERRIFF - The sheriff is a public officer who
the loss or dissipation of real or personal property during the exercises his duties and functions within the limits of his
pendency of an action.it can be availed of even after the authority and jurisdiction, as defined by law. The sheriff serves
judgment has become final and executory as it may be applied all writs, executes all processes, and carries into effect all
for to aid execution or carry judgment into effect (2001 Bar). decisions, orders or awards issued by the National Labor
Relations Commission or any of its Labor Commission or any of
NOTE: its Labor Arbiters, the Philippine Overseas Employment
Receivership, like injunction may also be a principal action as Administration, and the Supreme Court in proper cases.
the one referred to in Sec. 4 of Rule 39. Rule 59 is a
receivership that is ancillary to a main action (Riano, 2012). Pauco v. Siguenza, G.R. No. 29295, [October 22, 1928], 52
Purpose of Receivership To prevent imminent danger to the PHIL 241-244
property. If the action does not require such protection or
preservation, the remedy is not receivership (Evelina Chavez v. C. CASES WHEN RECEIVER MAY BE APPOINTED
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 174356, January 20, 2010). The
purpose of receivership as a provisional remedy is to protect APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER
and preserve the rights of the parties during: i)the pendency of
the main action; ii) during the pendency of an appeal, or iii) as RULE 59 - Section 1. Appointment of receiver. — Upon a
an aid in the execution of judgment. verified application, one or more receivers of the property
subject of the action or proceeding may be appointed by the
When can it be filed court where the action is pending or by the Court of Appeals or
1. At any stage of the proceedings; by the Supreme Court, or a member thereof, in the following
2. Even after finality of judgment. cases:

D. (a) When it appears from the verified application, and

such other proof as the court may require, that the
COMPAÑIA General de Tabacos de Filipinas v. Pomar, G.R. party applying for the appointment of a receiver has
No. 6305, [September 26, 1911], 20 PHIL 261-269 an interest in the property or fund which is the subject
 of the action or proceeding, and that such property or property or funds is in danger of being lost, wasted or
fund is in danger of being lost, removed, or materially dissipated;
injured unless a receiver be appointed to administer 2. Verified application filed at any stage of the proceedings
and preserve it; even after final judgment, prior to the satisfaction of
judgment (Sec. 1, Rule 59);
E. (b) When it appears in an action by the mortgagee for 3. The application must be with notice and hearing;
the foreclosure of a mortgage that the property is in 4. The applicant must post a bond executed to the party
danger of being wasted or dissipated or materially against whom the application is presented (Sec. 2, Rule
injured, and that its value is probably insufficient to 59);
discharge the mortgage debt, or that the parties have 5. Receiver must be sworn to perform his duties faithfully
so stipulated in the contract of mortgage; and shall file a bond (Sec. 4, Rule 58).

F. (c) After judgment, to preserve the property during the J. GROUNDS FOR APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER
pendency of an appeal, or to dispose of it according to
the judgment, or to aid execution when the execution 1. When it appears from the verified application, and such
has been returned unsatisfied or the judgment obligor other proof as the court may require, that the party
refuses to apply his property in satisfaction of the applying for the appointment of a receiver has an interest
judgment, or otherwise to carry the judgment into in the property or fund which is the subject of the action
effect; or proceeding, and that such property or fund is in danger
of being lost, removed, or materially injured unless a
G. (d) Whenever in other cases it appears that the receiver be appointed to administer and preserve it;
appointment of a receiver is the most convenient and
feasible means of preserving, administering, or 2. (b) When it appears in an action by the mortgagee for the
disposing of the property in litigation. foreclosure of a mortgage that the property is in danger of
being wasted or dissipated or materially injured, and that
H. During the pendency of an appeal, the appellate court its value is probably insufficient to discharge the
may allow an application for the appointment of a mortgage debt, or that the parties have so stipulated in
receiver to be filed in and decided by the court of the contract of mortgage;
origin and the receiver appointed to be subject to the
control of said court. (1a) 3. After judgment, to preserve the property during the
pendency of an appeal, or to dispose of it according to
the judgment, or to aid execution when the execution has
I. REQUISITES been returned unsatisfied or the judgment obligor refuses
to apply his property in satisfaction of the judgment, or
otherwise to carry the judgment into effect;
REQUISITE FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER
1. Party applying for receivership has an existing interest in 4. Whenever in other cases it appears that the appointment
the property or funds subject of the action and the of a receiver is the most convenient and feasible means
 of preserving, administering, or disposing of the property to the property. If the action does not require such protection or
in litigation. preservation, the remedy is not receivership

During the pendency of an appeal, the appellate court may allow The purpose of receivership as a provisional remedy is to
an application for the appointment of a receiver to be filed in and protect and preserve the rights of the parties during:
decided by the court of origin and the receiver appointed to be
subject to the control of said court i) the pendency of the main action;
a. Calo v. Roldan, G.R. No. L-252, [March 30,
1946], 76 PHIL 445-456 ii) during the pendency of an appeal, or
b. Paranete v. Tan, G.R. No. L-3791,
[November 29, 1950], 87 PHIL 678-682) iii) as an aid in the execution of judgment as
c. Rocha & Co. v. Crossfield, G.R. No. 3430,
[August 7, 1906], 6 PHIL 355-360 a. Vivares v. Reyes, G.R. No. 155408,
[February 13, 2008], 568 PHIL 644-658
Requirements before issuance of an Order General powers of a receiver

For the issuance of an order, it was held in the case of Citibank, The following are the general powers of a receiver as
N.A. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 61508; contemplated under the Rules of court.

The applicant must file: a) Bring and defend actions in his own name, in his
capacity as receiver;
A bond executed to the party against whom the application is
presented in amount fixed by the court. The bond is undertaken b) Take and keep possession of the property in
to the effect that the applicant will pay the other party damages controversy;
that he may sustain by reason of the appointment of the
receiver. c) Receive rents;

Under Sec. 2, Rule 59 however it is noted that The court, in its d) Collect debts due to himself as receiver or to the fund,
discretion, may require an additional bond for further security for property, estate, person or corporation of which he is
damage a receiver;

a. Citibank, N.A. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. e) Compound for and compromise debts collected;
61508, [March 17, 1999], 364 PHIL 328-352
f) Make transfers;
Granted only in extreme situations
g) Pay outstanding debts;
As what is held in the case of Evelina Chavez v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 174356, that an appointment of a receiver
granted only in extreme situation is to prevent imminent danger
 h) Divide money and other property that shall remain a. Berg v. Teus, G.R. No. L-2987, [February 20,
among the persons legally entitled to receive the 1951], 88 PHIL 173-177
same;
Termination of receivership
i) Do such acts respecting the property as the court may
authorize; a. Martinez v. Graño, G.R. No. 27685,
[December 24, 1927], 51 PHIL 287-302
j) Invest funds in his hands only by order of the court b. Platon v. Sandoval, G.R. No. 49031, [August
upon the written consent of all the parties (Sec. 6, 28, 1944], 74 PHIL 731-734)
Rule 59).

Two (2) kinds of bonds 1. Enumerate the cases when a receiver may be appointed.

Under the Rules there are two kinds of bonds in receivership Under Sec. 1. Rule 59. A receiver may be appointed Upon a
verified application, one or more receivers of the property
 Applicant’s Bond - the bond required before the subject of the action or proceeding may be appointed by the
appointment of a receiver (Sec. 2, Rule 59); court where the action is pending or by the Court of Appeals or
by the Supreme Court, or a member thereof, in the following
 Receiver’s Bond – The receiver before entering upon his cases:
duties shall be sworn to perform them faithfully and shall
file a bond to the effect that he will faithfully discharge his K. When it appears from the verified application, and
duties in the action and obey the orders of the court (Sec. such other proof as the court may require, that the
4, Rule 59). party applying for the appointment of a receiver has
an interest in the property or fund which is the subject
Effect of termination of main action of the action or proceeding, and that such property or
fund is in danger of being lost, removed, or materially
A receivership being a mere provisional remedy, the injured unless a receiver be appointed to administer
receivership in Rule 59 presupposes that there is a principal and preserve it;
action or proceeding and that the property or fund subject of
such action or proceeding requires its preservation. Hence, L. When it appears in an action by the mortgagee for the
when the main action is terminated the receivership shall also foreclosure of a mortgage that the property is in
be terminated. danger of being wasted or dissipated or materially
injured, and that its value is probably insufficient to
However, it is noteworthy that, Receivership, like injunction may discharge the mortgage debt, or that the parties have
also be a principal action as the one referred to in Sec. 4 of so stipulated in the contract of mortgage;
Rule 39. Rule 59 is a receivership that is ancillary to a main
action. M. After judgment, to preserve the property during the
pendency of an appeal, or to dispose of it according to
the judgment, or to aid execution when the execution
 has been returned unsatisfied or the judgment obligor appointed by the court where the action is pending, or by the
refuses to apply his property in satisfaction of the Court of Appeals or by the Supreme Court, or a member
judgment, or otherwise to carry the judgment into thereof, provided in cases provided under the said rule.
effect;

N. Whenever in other cases it appears that the 4. Can the court of origin appoint a receiver after an appeal
appointment of a receiver is the most convenient and has been perfected?
feasible means of preserving, administering, or
disposing of the property in litigation. NO. Under Rule 59 section, it was provided that only During the
pendency of an appeal, the appellate court may allow an
During the pendency of an appeal, the appellate court may allow application for the appointment of a receiver to be filed in and
an application for the appointment of a receiver to be filed in and decided by the court of origin and the receiver appointed to be
decided by the court of origin and the receiver appointed to be subject to the control of said court.
subject to the control of said court. (1a)
5. Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to appoint a
2. Does the MTC and other lower courts have jurisdiction receiver?
to appoint a receiver?
YES. Sec. 1. Rule 59, provides that upon a verified application,
YES. Sec. 1. Rule 59, provides that upon a verified application, one or more receivers of the property subject of the action or
one or more receivers of the property subject of the action or proceeding may be appointed by the court where the action is
proceeding may be appointed by the court where the action is pending, or by the Court of Appeals or by the Supreme Court, or
pending, or by the Court of Appeals or by the Supreme Court, or a member thereof, provided in cases provided under the said
a member thereof, provided in cases provided under the said rule.
rule.
6. Can a clerk of court be appointed as a receiver?
Who may appoint a receiver?
1. Court where action is pending; NO. this was settled by the Supreme Court in the case Descallar
2. Court of Appeals; or vs CA G.R. No. 106473 July 12, 1993, wherein it upheld that
3. Supreme Court or a member thereof (Sec. 1, Rule 59).
"We hold that the respondent judge has acted in excess of
3. Can a proceeding for appointment of receiver be made his jurisdiction when he issued the order above adverted to.
through a motion? That order, in effect, made the clerk of court a sort of a
receiver charged with the duty of receiving the proceeds of
YES. A motion is a written application for an order addressed to sale and the harvest of every year during the pendency of
the court or to a judge in vacation by any party to: suit or the case with the disadvantage that the clerk of court has not
proceeding, or by anyone interested therein. A motion is filed any bond to guarantee the faithful discharge of his
considered as a verified pleading, hence based Rule 59, sec. 1, duties as depositary; and considering that in actions
provides that upon a verified application, one or more receivers involving title real property, the appointment of a receiver
of the property subject of the action or proceeding may be cannot be entertained because its effect would be to take
 the property out of the possession of the defendant, except “When it appears from the verified application, and such other
in extreme cases when there is clear proof of its necessity to proof as the court may require, that the party applying for the
save the plaintiff from grave and irremediable loss of appointment of a receiver has an interest in the property or fund
damage, it is evident that the action of the respondent judge which is the subject of the action or proceeding, and that such
is unwarranted and unfair to the defendants.” property or fund is in danger of being lost, removed, or
materially injured unless a receiver be appointed to administer
and preserve it;”

7. Can a party to a litigation be appointed as receiver? Hence, if the main action is merely to obtain money judgment on
unpaid credits, and such property or fund is not considered as
NO. In the case of Commodities Storage v. Court of Appeals being in danger of being lost or materially injured. Then an
G.R. No. 125008, the Supreme Court held that; appointment of a receiver is not proper in such case.

” A petition for receivership requires that the property or fund

which is the subject of the action must be in danger of loss,
removal or material injury which necessitates protection or 9. Can the court appoint a receiver in a case involving title
preservation. In the instant case, there is no sufficient showing to real property? Is there an exception?
that the ice plant is in danger of disappearing or being wanted
and reduced to a ‘scrap heap.” At the time the trial court issued In actions involving title real property, the appointment of a
the order for receivership of the property, the problem had been receiver cannot be entertained because its effect would be to
remedied and there was no imminent danger of any leakage. take the property out of the possession of the defendant, except
in extreme cases when there is clear proof of its necessity to
Neither party to a litigation should be appointed as receiver save the plaintiff from grave and irremediable loss of damage, it
without the consent of the other because a receiver should be a is evident that the action of the respondent judge is unwarranted
person indifferent to the parties and should be impartial and and unfair to the defendants
disinterested. The receiver is not the representative of any of
the parties but of all of them to the end that their interests may 10. What are the requisites for the appointment of a
be equally protected with the least possible inconvenience and receiver?
expense.”

Requisite for the appointment of a receiver are the following;

6. Party applying for receivership has an existing interest in
8. Is the appointment of a receiver proper where the action the property or funds subject of the action and the
is merely to obtain money judgment on unpaid credits? property or funds is in danger of being lost, wasted or
dissipated;
NO. Sec1 (a). Rule 59. Provides that a receiver may be 7. Verified application filed at any stage of the proceedings
appointed by the court; even after final judgment, prior to the satisfaction of
judgment (Sec. 1, Rule 59);
8. The application must be with notice and hearing;
9. The applicant must post a bond executed to the party V. Replevin
against whom the application is presented (Sec. 2, Rule
59); Replevin Defined:
10. Receiver must be sworn to perform his duties faithfully The term Replevin is understood as the return or recovery by a
and shall file a bond (Sec. 4, Rule 58). person of goods or chattels claimed to be wrongfully taken or
detained upon the person’s giving security to try the matter in
court and return the goods if defeated in the action.

A remedy which may be a principal remedy or a provisional

relief. As a main action, it seeks to regain the possession of
personal chattels being wrongfully detained from the plaintiff. As
a provisional remedy, to allow the plaintiff to allow the plaintiff to
retain the thing during the pendency of the action and hold it
pendente lite. (BA Finance Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 102998, July
5, 1996

Nature

The nature of replevin as both principal remedy and

provisional relief.

As a principal remedy
The objective is to regain or recover the possession of the
personal property that may have been wrongfully detained by
another.

As a provisional relief
Allows the plaintiff to retain the thing during the pendency of the
action and hold it pendente lite.

Mixed action
The action is primarily possessory in nature and generally
determines nothing more than the right of possession. Replevin
is so usually described as a mixed action, being partly in rem
and partly in personam- in rem insofar as the recovery of
specific property is concerned, and in personam as regards to
damages involved. As an “action in rem”, the gist of the replevin
action is the right of the plaintiff to obtain possession of specific
personal property by reason of his being the owner or of his
having a special interest therein (BA Finance Corporation vs. Spouses Manahan executed a promissory note binding
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102998, July 5, 1996). themselves to pay Carmasters, Inc., P83,080.00 in 36 monthly
installments. To secure payment, the Manahan spouses
NOTE: An action in personam is an action against a person executed a deed of chattel mortgage over a motor vehicle,
on the basis of his personal liability, while an action in rem is Carmasters later assigned the promissory note and the chattel
an action against the thing itself, instead of against the person mortgage to petitioner BA Finance Corporation with the
conformity of the Manahans. When the latter failed to pay the
JURISDICTION installments, petitioner sent demand letters. The demands not
having been heeded, petitioner filed a complaint for replevin with
a. BA Finance Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. damages against the spouses, as well as against a John Doe,
No. 102998, [July 5, 1996], 327 PHIL 716- praying for the recovery of the vehicle with an alternative prayer
728) for the payment of a sum of money should the vehicle not be
returned. The lower court issued a writ of replevin.
Replevin, broadly understood, is both a form of principal remedy
and of a provisional relief. It may refer either to the action itself, The service of summons upon the spouses Manahan was
i.e., to regain the possession of personal chattels being caused to be served by petitioner. The original of the summons
wrongfully detained from the plaintiff by another, or to the had the name and the signature of private respondent Roberto
provisional remedy that would allow the plaintiff to retain the M. Reyes indicating that he received a copy of the summons
thing during the pendency of the action and hold it pendente lite. and the complaint. Petitioner, through its Legal Assistant, issued
The action is primarily possessory in nature and generally a certification to the effect that it had received from Orson R.
determines nothing more than the right of possession. Replevin Santiago, the deputy sheriff of the RTC the Ford Cortina seized
is so usually described as a mixed action, being partly in rem from private respondent Roberto M. Reyes, the John Doe
and partly in personam — in rem insofar as the recovery of referred to in the complaint, in Sorsogon, Sorsogon.
specific property is concerned, and in personam as regards to Consequently, the lower court came out with an order of
damages involved. As an "action in rem," the gist of the replevin seizure.
action is the right of the plaintiff to obtain possession of specific
personal property by reason of his being the owner or of his A few months later, the court issued an order dismissing the
having a special interest therein. Consequently, the person in caste for failure to prosecute and further ordering the plaintiff to
possession of the property sought to be replevied is ordinary the return the property seized with all its accessories to defendant
proper and only necessary party defendant, and the plaintiff is John Doe in the person of Roberto M. Reyes because summons
not required to so join as defendants other persons claiming a where not served to Sps. Manahan.
right on the property but not in possession thereof. Rule 60 of
the Rules of Court allows an application for the immediate The order was recalled, but summons still could not be served
possession of the property but the plaintiff must show that he on the Manahans. So, the trial court dismissed the case and
has a good legal basis, i.e., a clear title thereto, for seeking ordered that the vehicle be returned to Reyes. The CA affirmed.
such interim possession.
On appeal, the CA denied petitioner’s motion for
FACTS: reconsideration. Hence this petition.
ISSUE: In case the right of possession on the part of the plaintiff, or his
authority to claim such possession or that of his principal, is put
Whether or not a mortgagee can maintain an action for replevin to great doubt (a contending party might contest the legal bases
against any possessor of the object of a chattel mortgage even for plaintiffs cause of action or an adverse and independent
if the latter were not a party to the mortgage. claim of ownership or right of possession is raised by that party),
it could become essential to have other persons involved and
RULING: accordingly impleaded for a complete determination and
resolution of the controversy.
NO. A chattel mortgagee, unlike a pledgee, need not be in, nor
entitled to the possession of the property unless and until the
Replevin, broadly understood, is both a form of principal remedy mortgagor defaults and the mortgagee thereupon seeks to
and of a provisional relief. It may refer either to the action itself, foreclose thereon. Since the mortgagee's right of possession is
i.e., to regain the possession of personal chattels being conditioned upon the actual fact of default which itself may be
wrongfully detained from the plaintiff by another, or to the controverted, the inclusion of other parties like the debtor or the
provisional remedy that would allow the plaintiff to retain the mortgagor himself, may be required in order to allow a full and
thing during the pendency of the action and hold it pendente lite. conclusive determination of the case. When the mortgagee
The action is primarily possessory in nature and generally seeks a replevin in order to effect the eventual foreclosure of the
determines nothing more than the right of possession. Replevin mortgage, it is not only the existence of, but also the
is so usually described as a mixed action, being partly in rem mortgagor's default on, the chattel mortgage that, among other
and partly in personam — in rem insofar as the recovery of things, can properly uphold the right to replevy the property. The
specific property is concerned, and in personam as regards to burden to establish a valid justification for that action lies with
damages involved. As an "action in rem," the gist of the replevin the plaintiff. An adverse possessor, who is not the mortgagor,
action is the right of the plaintiff to obtain possession of specific cannot just be deprived of his possession, let alone be bound by
personal property by reason of his being the owner or of his the terms of the chattel mortgage contract, simply because the
having a special interest therein. Consequently, the person in mortgagee brings up an action for replevin.
possession of the property sought to be replevied is ordinary the
proper and only necessary party defendant, and the plaintiff is
not required to so join as defendants other persons claiming a
right on the property but not in possession thereof. Rule 60 of When may writ be issued
the Rules of Court allows an application for the immediate
possession of the property but the plaintiff must show that he The writ of Replevin may only be obtained when the defendant
has a good legal basis, i.e., a clear title thereto, for seeking such in the action has not yet filed his answer to the complaint where
interim possession. it is necessary to:

Where the right of the plaintiff to the possession of the specific 1. Protect plaintiff’s right of possession to property;
property is so conceded or evident, the action need only be
maintained against him who so possesses the property. 2. Prevent defendant from destroying, damaging or disposing of
the property.
NOTE: Under the Resolution of the Supreme Court en banc 3. The applicant must give a bond, executed to the adverse
dated January 11, 1983, a writ of replevin like the one issued in party and double the value of the property as stated in the
the present case may be served anywhere in the Philippines affidavit (Sec. 2, Rule 60) (2010 Bar)
(Fernandez v. International Corporate Bank, now Union Bank of
the Philippines, G.R. No. 131283, October 7, 1999). a. Servicewide Specialists, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 110048, [November 19,
Recovery of possession of personal property in a writ of replevin 1999], 376 PHIL 602-614
can be availed
1. At the commencement of the action FACTS:
2. At any time before answer
Leticia L. Laus purchased on credit a Colt Galant from Fortune Motors
(Phils.) Corporation. It was agreed upon, among others, that in case
Requisites of default in the payment of any installment the total principal sum,
together with the interest, shall become immediately due and payable.
As a security a chattel mortgage was constituted over the said motor
Requisites in applying for Replevin
vehicle. The credit and mortgage rights were assigned by Fortune
Motors Corp. in favor of Filinvest Credit Corporation with the consent
1. The application for the writ must be filed at the of the mortgagor-debtor. After sometime, Filinvest Credit Corporation
commencement of the action or at any time before the in turn assigned the credit in favor of Servicewide Specialists, Inc.
defendant answers (Sec. 1, Rule 60) (1999 Bar); transferring unto the latter all its rights under the promissory note and
2. The application must contain an affidavit where the applicant the chattel mortgage with the corresponding notice of assignment sent
particularly describes the property that he is the owner of the to the registered car owner.
property or that he is entitled to the possession thereof;
Leticia Laus failed to pay and pursuant to the provisions of the
NOTE: The affidavit must contain the following promissory note, Servicewide demanded payment of the entire
a) The applicant is the owner of the property claimed, outstanding balance plus interest. Despite said formal demand, Leticia
particularly describing it, or is entitled to the possession Laus failed to pay. As a result of the failure of Leticia Laus to settle
her obligation, or at least to surrender possession of the motor vehicle
thereof.
for the purpose of foreclosure, Servicewide instituted a complaint for
b) The property is wrongfully detained by the adverse party replevin, impleading Hilda Tee and John Dee in whose custody the
alleging the cause of detention thereof according to the vehicle was believed to be at the time of the filing of the suit.
best of his knowledge, information, and belief.
c) The property has not been distrained or taken for tax ISSUE:
assessment or a fine pursuant to law, or seized under the
writ of execution or preliminary attachment or otherwise Whether a case for replevin may be pursued against the defendant
placed under custodia legis or is so seized, that is without impleading the absconding debtor-mortgagor?
exempt from such seizure or custody
d) Determination of the actual value of the property. RULING:

In a suit for replevin, a clear right of possession must be established.

A foreclosure under a chattel mortgage may properly be commenced
only once there is default on the part of the mortgagor of his obligation If the adverse party objects to the sufficiency of the applicant’s
secured by the mortgage. The replevin in this case has been resorted bond or of the surety, at any time before the delivery of the
to in order to pave the way for the foreclosure of what is covered by property to the applicant, the adverse party may file a redelivery
the chattel mortgage. The conditions essential for such foreclosure bond executed to the applicant, double the value of the property
would be to show, firstly, the existence of the chattel mortgage and,
as stated in the applicant’s affidavit to answer for the return of
secondly, the default of the mortgagor. These requirements must be
shown because the validity of the plaintiffs exercise of the right of
property if adjudged and pay for such sum as he may recover
foreclosure is inevitably dependent thereon. Since the mortgagee's from the applicant (Sec. 5, Rule 60)
right of possession is conditioned upon the actual fact of default which NOTE: It is required that the redelivery bond be filed within the
itself may be controverted, the inclusion of other parties, like the period of 5 days after the taking of the property.
debtor or the mortgagor himself, may be required in order to allow a
full and conclusive determination of the case. a. Citibank, N.A. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
Leticia Laus, being an indispensable party, should have been 61508, [March 17, 1999], 364 PHIL 328-352
impleaded in the complaint for replevin and damages. An
indispensable party is one whose interest will be affected by the FACTS:
court's action in the litigation, and without whom no final determination
of the case can be had. The party's interest in the subject matter of
1. In consideration for a loan with Citibank, N.A. (formerly First
the suit and in the relief sought are so inextricably intertwined with the
other parties that his legal presence as a party to the proceeding is an National City Bank), private respondent Douglas Anama
absolute necessity. In his absence, there cannot be a resolution of executed a promissory note to pay the plaintiff bank the sum of
the dispute of the parties before the Court which is effective, P418,000.00 in sixty (60) equal successive monthly
complete, or equitable. installments.

2. To secure payment of the loan, Anama also constituted a

Chattel Mortgage in favor of petitioner, on various machineries
Affidavit and bond; Redelivery Bond and equipment.

3. However, for failure and refusal of the private respondent to

Replevin Bond pay the monthly installments despite repeated demands,
petitioner filed a verified complaint against Anama in the Manila
For the a) return of the property to the adverse party if such CFI for the collection of his unpaid balance, for the delivery and
return is adjudged; b) payment to the adverse party of such sum possession of the chattels covered preparatory to the
as he may recover from the applicant in the action. (Sec. 2, Rule foreclosure.
60)
4. Anama submitted his Answer with Counterclaim, denying the
It is intended to indemnify the defendant against the loss that he material averments of the complaint, and averring, inter alia that
may suffer by being compelled to surrender the possession of the remedy of replevin was improper and the writ of seizure
the property pending the action. should be vacated.

Redelivery Bond 5. The trial court, upon proof of default of the private respondent
in the payment of the said loan, issued an Order of Replevin.
Despite the issuance of the said order however, actual delivery
of possession did not take place because of negotiations for an
amicable settlement. A pre-trial conference was held and the ISSUE:
petitioner then took over private respondent’s business as
receiver. But when settlement failed, the lower court tried the 1. W/N CA erred in finding that the issuance of writ of replevin
case on the merits. was improper

7. Petitioner presented a Motion for the Issuance of an Alias 2. W/N CA erred in finding that the complaint did not comply
Writ of Seizure, ordering the sheriff to seize and dispose of the with the requirements of an affidavit of merit
properties involved.
3. W/N CA erred in finding that the bond posted by petitioner is
8. Private respondent opposed the motion claiming, among insufficient
others, (1) that Citibank’s P400,000 replevin bond to answer for
damages was grossly inadequate; (2) that he was never in 4. W/N CA erred in finding that petitioner did not comply with
default to justify the seizure; xxx (4) that his supposed Section 5, Rule 59
obligations with Citibank were fully secured and his mortgaged
properties are more than sufficient to secure payment thereof; HELD:
xxx
1. No.
9. The trial court issued an Order granting the Motion for Alias
Writ of Seizure. Private respondent moved for reconsideration of 2. Qualified yes. While petitioner is correct insofar as it contends
the aforesaid order but the same was denied. As a that substantial compliance with the affidavit requirement may
consequence, the sheriff seized subject properties, dismantled be permissible pursuant to Section 2, Rule 60 of the ROC,
and removed them from the premises where they were installed, petitioner’s complaint does notallege all the facts that should be
delivered them to petitioner’s possession and advertised them set forth in an affidavit of merit.
for sale at public auction.

10. Private respondent filed with the CA a Petition for Certiorari

and Prohibition with Injunction. Finding that the trial court acted The Court held that the absence of an affidavit of merit is not
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of fatal where the petition itself, which is under oath, recites the
jurisdiction in issuing the assailed resolutions, the CA granted following facts constitutive of the grounds for the petition: (1)
the petition, holding that the provisions of the Rules of Court on that plaintiff owns the property particularly describing the same,
Replevin and Receivership have not been complied with, in that or that he is entitled to its possession; (2) wrongful detention by
(1) there was no Affidavit of Merit accompanying the Complaint defendant of said property; (3) that the property is not taken by
for Replevin; (2) the bond posted by Citibank was insufficient; virtue of a tax assessment or fine pursuant to law or seized
and (3) there was non-compliance with the requirement of a under execution or attachment or, if it is so seized, that it is
receiver’s bond and oath of office. Hence the present petition for exempt from such seizure; and the (4) the actual value of the
certiorari with TRO by Citibank. property.
 of the surety or sureties thereon;” but if he does so, “he cannot
require the return of the property” by posting a counter-bond
Although the complaint alleges that petitioner is entitled to the pursuant to Sections 5 and 6. The private respondent did not opt
possession of subject properties by virtue of the chattel to cause redelivery of the properties to him by filing a counter-
mortgage executed by the private respondent, upon the latter’s bond precisely because he objected to the sufficiency of the
default on its obligation, and the defendant’s alleged “wrongful bond posted by plaintiff. Therefore, he need not file a counter-
detention” of the same, the said complaint does not state that bond or redelivery bond.
subject properties were not taken by virtue of a tax assessment
or fine imposed pursuant to law or seized under execution or 4. No. CA found that the requirements of Section 5, Rule 59 on
attachment or, if they were so seized, that they are exempt from receivership were not complied with by the petitioner,
such seizure. Then too, petitioner stated the value of subject particularly the filing or posting of a bond and the taking of an
properties at a “probable value of P200,000.00, more or less”. oath. However, the old Rules of Court which was in effect at the
time this case was still at trial stage, a bond for the appointment
Although respondent’s defense of lack of affidavit of merit is of a receiver was not generally required of the applicant, except
meritorious, procedurally, such a defense is unfortunately no when the application was made ex parte. CA was right in finding
longer available for failure to plead the same in the Answer as a defect in such assumption of receivership in that the
required by the omnibus motion rule. requirement of taking an oath has not been complied with.
– For erroneously issuing the alias writ of seizure without
3.Yes. ROC requires the plaintiff to “give a bond, executed to inquiring into the sufficiency of the replevin bond and for
the defendant in double the value of the property as stated in allowing petitioner to assume receivership without the requisite
the affidavit x x x .” Since the valuation made by the petitioner oath, the Court of Appeals aptly held that the trial court acted
has been disputed by the respondent, the lower court should with grave abuse of discretion in dealing with the situation.
have determined first the actual value of the properties. It was Under the Revised Rules of Court, the property seized under a
thus an error for the said court to approve the bond, which was writ of replevin is not to be delivered immediately to the plaintiff.
based merely on the probable value of the properties. A replevin This is because a possessor has every right to be respected in
bond is intended to answer for damages and to indemnify the its possession and may not be deprived of it without due
defendant against any loss that he may suffer by reason of its process. Petition DISMISSED.
being compelled to surrender the possession of the disputed
property pending trial of the action. b. Factoran, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
93540, [December 13, 1999], 378 PHIL 282-
299

The remedies provided under Section 5, Rule 60, are alternative FACTS:
remedies. Conformably, a defendant in a replevin suit may
demand the return of possession of the property replevined by police officers of the Marikina Police Station intercepted a six-
filing a redelivery bond executed to the plaintiff in double the wheeler truck||| carrying 4,000 board feet of narra lumber. They
value of the property as stated in the plaintiff’s affidavit within apprehended the truck driver and brought the truck and its cargo
the period specified in Sections 5 and 6. Alternatively, “the to the DENR Office in Quezon City. Atty. Vecente Robies
defendant may object to the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s bond, or investigated them, and discovered discrepancies in the
documentaion of the narra lumber in violation of BFD Circular However, the Court of Appeals lifted the writ of preliminary
No. 10. Fulgencio S. Factoran, then secretary of DENR ssued injunction and dismissed the petition. It declared that as the
an order for the confiscation of the narra lumber and the six- complaint for replevin filed by private respondents complied with
wheeler truck and were subsequently advertised to be sold at the requirements of an affidavit and bond under Secs. 1 and 2 of
public auction. Private respondents filed a complaint with prayer Rule 60 of the Revised Rules of court, issuance of the writ of
for the issuance of writs of replevin and preliminary injunction replevin was mandatory.
and/or temporary restraining order for the recovery of the
confiscated lumber and six-wheeler truck, and to enjoin the ISSUE:
planned auction sale of the subject narra lumber, respectively.
The trial court issued an Order directing petitioners to desist Whether replevin is proper?
from proceeding with the planned auction sale and setting the
hearing for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction. On HELD:
the scheduled date of the auction sale, private respondents filed
an Ex-Parte Motion for Release and Return of Goods and NO, A writ of replevin does not just issue as a matter of course
Documents (Replevin) supported by an Affidavit for Issuance of upon the applicant's filing of a bond and affidavit, as the Court of
Writ of Replevin and Preliminary Injunction and a Replevin Bond Appeals has wrongly put it. The mere filing of an affidavit, sans
in the amount of P180,000.00 which was granted by the RTC. allegations therein that satisfy the requirements of Sec. 2, Rule
The trial court issued a writ of seizure. however, petitioners 60 of the Revised Rules of Court, cannot justify the issuance of
refused to comply therewith. a writ of replevin. Said provision reads:

Affidavit and bond. — Upon applying for such order the plaintiff
must show by his own affidavit or that of some other person who
Sheriff Brodett reported that petitioners prevented him personally knows the facts:
from removing the subject properties from the DENR
Compound. To avoid any unwarranted confrontation between xxxx
them, he just agreed to a constructive possession of the
properties in question. Petitioners filed a Manifestation stating (c) That the property has not been distrained or taken for a tax
their intention to file a counterbondt o stay the execution of the assessment or fine pursuant to law, or seized under a writ of
writ of seizure and to post a cash bond in the amount of execution, or preliminary attachment or otherwise placed under
P180,000.00. But the trial court did not oblige petitioners for they custodia legis, or if so seized, that it is exempt from such seizure
failed to serve a copy of the Manifestation on private or custody;
respondents. Petitioners made another attempt to post a Wrongful detention by the defendant of the properties
counterbond which was, however, denied for the same reason. sought in an action for replevin must be satisfactorily
Petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for established. If only a mechanistic averment thereof is offered,
Certiorari, Prohibition and/or Mandamus to annul the Orders of the writ should not be issued. In the case at bar, the subject
the trial court. The Court of Appeals granted petitioners narra lumber and six-wheeler truck were confiscated by
temporary relief in the form of a TRO. The Court of Appeals petitioner Secretary pursuant to Section 68-A of P.D. No. 705,
converted the TRO into a writ of preliminary injunction upon as amended by Executive Order (E.O.) No. 277. As the
filing by petitioners of a bond in the amount of P180,000.00. petitioner Secretary's administrative authority to confiscate is
clearly provided by law, the taking of the subject properties is Return of the property to defendant
not wrongful and does not warrant the issuance of a writ of
replevin prayed for by private respondents. Issuance of the 1. He seasonably posts a redelivery bond (Ibid.);
confiscation order by petitioner Secretary was a valid exercise of
his power under Sec. 68-A of P.D. No. 705. By virtue of said 2. Plaintiff’s bond is found to be insufficient or defective and
order, the narra lumber and six-wheeler truck of private is not replaced with proper bond;
respondents were held in custodia legis and hence, beyond the
reach of replevin. When a thing is in official custody of a judicial 3. Property is not delivered to the plaintiff for any reason
or executive officer in pursuance of his execution of a legal writ, (Sec. 6, Rule 60).
replevin will not lie to recover it.
When the property is claimed by a third party
Sheriff’s duty in the implementation of the writ; when
property is claimed by third party 1. Third party shall file and serve affidavit upon sheriff and
applicant stating his entitlement to possession and shall
Duties of the sheriff: Upon receipt of the court order serve the affidavit upon the sheriff while the latter has
possession of the property;
1. Sheriff must serve a copy of the writ on the adverse
party, together with a copy of the application, affidavit and 2. Sheriff shall return the property to third person unless
bond; applicant files a bond (same amount as the value of the
property) approved by court to indemnify the third person;
2. He must forthwith take the property, if it be in the
possession of the adverse party, or his agent, and retain 3. Claim for damages upon said bond must be filed within
it in his custody; 120 days from date of filing of the bond.

3. If the property or any part thereof be concealed in a NOTE: When the bond is filed, the sheriff shall not be liable for
building or enclosure, the sheriff must demand its damages for the taking or keeping of such property.
delivery, and if it be is not delivered, he must cause the
building or enclosure to be broken open and take the The party-claimant is not precluded from vindicating his claim
property into his possession; and may maintain an action and seek injunctive relief against
the sheriff. The applicant is likewise not precluded from claiming
4. After the sheriff has taken possession of the property as damages against the third party who filed a frivolous or spurious
herein provided, he must keep it in a secure place. claim in the same or separate action, (Sec. 7, Rule 60).

5. Within (5) days from the taking of the property, the sheriff Writ issued in favour of the Republic
shall wait for the move of the adverse party. If the
adverse party does not object or fails to perform acts to
effect the return to him of the property, the property shall When the writ of replevin is issued in favor or the Republic of the
be delivered to the applicant. (Sec. 4, Rule 60). Philippines, or any officer duly representing it, the filing of such
bond shall not be required, and in case the sheriff is sued for total amount to be paid for 48 monthly installments would
damages as a result of replevin, he shall be represented by the amount to P553,944.
Solicitor General, and if held liable therefor, the actual damages
adjudged by the court shall be paid by the National Treasurer Due to the respondent bank's "greedy desire" to unjustly enrich
out of the funds to be appropriated for the purpose (Rule 60, itself at the expense of the petitioners, the former filed an
Sec. 7) unfounded complaint for a sum of money with replevin before
the MTC of Pasay City.
The adverse party has to comply with the order to give support
pendente lite. If he does not, an order of execution shall be Considering that the principal amount involved was P553,944,
issued by the court either: i) motu proprio or ii) upon motion. He petitioners filed an Answer mentioning in the special and
may also be held liable for contempt (Sec. 5, Rule 61) affirmative defenses a Motion to Dismiss, for lack of jurisdiction,
It is subject to the issuance of an order of execution when the but this was denied on February 10, 1997 and was received on
person ordered to give support refuses to. February 20, 1997. A Motion for Reconsideration was then
submitted on April 2, 1997.
A third party may obtain a writ of execution against the person
ordered to give support provided that: i) there is notice and Aside from that, petitioners contested the venue considering that
hearing; ii) the third person furnished the support to the the principal office of the respondent bank was in Makati, while
applicant because of the refusal or failure by the person ordered their residence was in QC.
to give support. (Sec. 5, Rule 61)
The Motion for Reconsideration was denied on May 9, 1997 and
Restitution received by them on May 29, 1997.

When the judgment finds that the person ordered to give When the respondent bank filed its complaint with prayer for the
support is not liable, the court shall order the recipient to make a issuance of a Writ of Replevin, the monthly installments were
restitution of what has been received with legal interest from almost fully paid; they would have been fully paid on November
date of actual payment. 26, 1997. Furthermore, the car's mileage at the time of illegal
Should the recipient failed to do so, the person who gave seizure was only 28,464 kilometers. They could not have been
support may file an action against the person legally obliged to considered in default at the time the complaint was filed,
give support. (Sec. 7, Rule 61) considering that: (a) they attempted many times to pay the bank
their installments for the months of August, September, October,
Fernandez v. International Corporate Bank, G.R. 1996, and up to the time of the filing of the case, they had not
No. 131283, [October 7, 1999], 374 PHIL 668-680 received any statement of delinquency as mandated by RA
3165 (Truth in Lending Act).
Facts:
If at all, petitioners added, the baseless filing of the case was
Petitioners purchased a Nissan Sentra Sedan through a deliberately done to enrich the bank at the expense of the
financing scheme of the private respondent, and the chattel petitioners which [was] tantamount to simple robbery. They even
mortgage was executed in favor of the financing institution. The tried consigning the P69,168 through a Manager's Check dated
January 7, 1997 for the months of August to February, 1997, or
beyond the four months installment in advance but were Memorandum were attached to petitioners' copy, thereby
similarly refused by the court for no valid reason. making said memorandum fatally defective because the
annexes were integral parts of the memorandum itself. Up to
Their petition for the outright dismissal of the complaint, as well this late date, respondent Premiere Insurance and Surety
as the lifting of the Writ of Replevin was denied even if the Corporation has not submitted its memorandum and may
amount of P553,344 representing the value of the chattel was therefore be deemed to have admitted the entire text of the
beyond the jurisdiction of the court. Petition to be true, valid and binding against it.

To be precise, MTC Order states: RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT:

As to the question of jurisdiction the complaint shows that the CA ruled that the MTC of Pasay City had jurisdiction over civil
amount plaintiff seeks to recover is P190,635, which is well cases in which the amount of the demand did not exceed
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. Likewise the P200,000 exclusive of interest, damages and attorney's fees.
attached Promissory Note in the Complaint also contains The basic claim in the present case was P190,635.90; hence,
stipulation as to the venue agreed upon by the parties in case the MTC had jurisdiction.
an action is filed in court, in which case this court has
jurisdiction. The Motion to Dismiss on ground of lack of CA further held that the objection to the impropriety of the venue
jurisdiction is likewise denied for being unmeritorious. should have been raised in a motion to dismiss before the filing
of a responsive pleading. The said issue, however, was raised
PETITIONERS’ ARGUMENT: for the first time only in petitioners' Answer.

1. The jurisdiction of the MTC of Pasay City is strictly limited Lastly, the CA agreed with the MTC that the Writ of Replevin
within the confines of the boundary limits of Pasay City, B.P. could be validly executed anywhere in Metro Manila because
129, Sec. 28. Section 27, Chapter III of B.P. 129, authorized the establishment
of the MTC of Metro Manila with 82 branches. Therefore, any
2. The MTC's jurisdiction is limited to not more than two hundred branch — in this case, Branch 44 which was stationed in Pasay
thousand pesos. — could issue writs and processes that could validly be served
and executed anywhere within Metro Manila.
3. Assuming that the MTC of Pasay City has jurisdiction to try
and decide the case and to issue the ancillary writ of replevin, Issue:
the CA erred in sanctioning the order of the MTC in denying
Petitioners' Motion for Redelivery of the vehicle which was filed (1) May the Writ of Replevin issued by the MTC of Pasay City
within five days after such seizure, which in essence was an be enforced outside the city? YES
outright departure from the express provision of the law and the
settled jurisprudence on the matter. (2) Did the MTC have jurisdiction over the Complaint? YES

4. The bank's Memorandum dated July 5, 1999 should be (3) Were petitioners entitled to the redelivery of the subject
stricken off and ordered expunged from the records for being vehicle? NO
fatally defective in form and substance. No Annexes to said
Ruling: 3. Writs and processes. —

A writ of replevin issued by the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay (a) Writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo, warranto,
City may be served and enforced anywhere in the Philippines. habeas corpus and injunction issued by a regional trial court
Moreover, the jurisdiction of a court is determined by the amount may be enforced in any part of the region.
of the claim alleged in the complaint, not by the value of the
chattel seized in ancillary proceedings. (b) All other processes, whether issued by a regional trial court
or a metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court or municipal
The Petition has no merit. circuit trial court may be served anywhere in the Philippines,
and, in the last three cases, without a certification by the judge
First Issue: Territorial Enforcement of the Writ of Replevin of the regional trial court. 10

Petitioners argue that the Writ of Replevin issued by the MTC of Thus, the Writ of Replevin issued by Judge Paas, which
Pasay could be enforced only within the confines of Pasay City. obviously does not fall under item "a" of the above-cited Rule,
In support, they cite Section 28 of Batas Pambansa (BP) 129, may be validly enforced anywhere in the Philippines. Petitioners
which states: confused the jurisdiction of a court to hear and decide a case on
the one hand with, on the other, its power to issue writs and
Sec. 28. Other Metropolitan Trial Courts. — The Supreme Court processes pursuant to and in the exercise of said jurisdiction.
shall constitute Metropolitan Trial Courts in such other Applying the said Rule, Malaloan v. Court of Appeals reiterated
metropolitan areas as may be established by law whose the foregoing distinction between the jurisdiction of the trial court
territorial jurisdiction shall be co-extensive with the cities and and the administrative area in which it could enforce its orders
municipalities comprising the metropolitan area. and processes pursuant to the jurisdiction conferred on it:

Every Metropolitan Trial Judge shall be appointed to a The rule enumerates the writs and processes which, even if
metropolitan area which shall be his permanent station and his issued by a regional trial court, are enforceable only within its
appointment shall state the branch of the court and the seat judicial region. In contrast, it unqualifiedly provides that all other
thereof to which he shall be originally assigned. A Metropolitan writs and processes, regardless of which court issued the same,
Trial Judge may be assigned by the Supreme Court to any shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines. No legal
branch within said metropolitan area as the interest of justice provision, statutory or reglementary, expressly or impliedly
may require, and such assignment shall not be deemed an provides a jurisdictional or territorial limit to its area of
assignment to another station within the meaning of this enforceability. On the contrary, the provision of the interim Rules
section.9 expressly authorizes its enforcement anywhere in the country,
since it is not among the processes specified in paragraph (a)
We are not convinced. Under the Resolution of the Supreme and there is no distinction or exception made regarding the
Court en banc dated January 11, 1983, providing for the interim processes contemplated in paragraph (b).
rules and guidelines relative to the implementation of BP 129, a
writ of replevin like the one issued in the present case may be Objection to Venue Too Late
served anywhere in the Philippines. Specifically, the said
Resolution states:
Petitioners object to the filing of the Complaint in Pasay City, shown in respondent bank's Complaint, is the collection of the
pointing out that their residence is in QC, while private sum of P190,635.90, an amount that is clearly within the
respondent's principal place of business is in Makati. Again, we jurisdiction of the MTC. Although the value of the vehicle seized
are not persuaded. Under the Rules of Court before the 1997 pursuant to the Writ of Replevin may have exceeded P200,000,
amendments, an objection to an improper venue must be made that fact does not deprive the trial court of its jurisdiction over
before a responsive pleading is filed. Otherwise, it will be the case. After all, the vehicle was merely the subject of a
deemed waived. In Diaz v. Adiong, the Court explained such chattel mortgage that had been used to secure petitioners' loan.
requirement in this wise: In any case, private respondents are entitled only to the amount
owed them. Under Section 14 of the Chattel Mortgage Law, the
Indeed, the laying of venue is procedural rather than proceeds of the sale of the mortgaged property shall be used
substantive, relating as it does to jurisdiction of the court over primarily to pay the costs of the sale, the obligation that has
the person rather than the subject matter. Venue relates to trial been secured and other subsequent obligations; and the
and not to jurisdiction. balance will be turned over to the mortgagors, herein petitioners.

Finally, Sec. 1 of Rule 16 provides that objections to improper Thus, the Writ of Replevin issued by Judge Paas, xxxx may be
venue must be made in a motion to dismiss before any validly enforced anywhere in the Philippines. Petitioners
responsive pleading is filed. Responsive pleadings are those confused the jurisdiction of a court to hear and decide a case on
which seek affirmative relief and set up defenses. Consequently, the one hand with, on the other, its power to issue writs and
having already submitted his person to the jurisdiction of the trial processes pursuant to and in the exercise of said jurisdiction.
court, petitioner may no longer object to the venue which, Applying the said Rule, Malaloan v. Court of Appeals reiterated
although mandatory in the instant case, is nevertheless the foregoing distinction between the jurisdiction of the trial court
waivable. As such, improper venue must be seasonably raised, and the administrative area in which it could enforce its orders
otherwise, it may be deemed waived. and processes pursuant to the jurisdiction conferred on it.

In the present case, petitioners' objection to the venue of the Third Issue: Redelivery of Subject Vehicle
case was raised for the first time in the Answer itself. Not having
been raised on time, their objection is therefore deemed waived. Petitioners assail the MTC's refusal to release the seized
In any event, petitioners had agreed to a stipulation in the vehicle despite a Manager's Check in the amount of P69,168
Promissory Note that a suit arising from their transaction may be they issued for the redelivery of the vehicle within five days from
filed in the proper court anywhere in Metro Manila, at the sole its seizure.
option of respondent bank. Necessarily, Pasay City is deemed
included in the said stipulation. This argument is devoid of merit. As observed by the trial court,
petitioners failed to comply with the requisites for the redelivery
Second Issue: MTC's Jurisdiction Over the Complaint of the vehicle seized:

Petitioners argue that the value of the property seized is in Under the Rules of Court, the defendant has a period of 5 days
excess of P200,000 and thus outside the jurisdiction of the from January 7, 1997 to post a re-delivery bond, in order to
MTC. This argument has no legal and factual basis. The secure the return of the subject vehicle and to post a counter
fundamental claim in the main action against petitioners, as
bond double the amount of the chattel. In this respect,
defendants failed to exercise his right.
In their Petition for Review, petitioners plainly admit that they VI. Support Pendente Lite
issued a check for only P69,168 for the purpose of covering the
advance payments plus the redelivery bond. Clearly, that Definition
amount was insufficient to cover even just the required It is an amount adjudicated by the trial court during the
redelivery bond alone, which should be in an amount double pendency of an action for support upon application by the
that of the chattel. Hence, the MTC's refusal to grant petitioners' plaintiff at the commencement of the proper action or anytime
Motion for redelivery was correct, and the CA did not err in afterwards.
upholding it.
Who are entitled?

1. The spouses
2. The legitimate ascendants and descendants
3. Parents and their legitimate children and the legitimate
and illegitimate children of the latter
4. Legitimate brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half
blood.

Support defined:
Support compromises everything indispensable for
a. Sustenance
b. Dwelling
c. Clothing
d. Medical attendance
e. Education
f. Transportation
In keeping with the financial capacity of the latter.

Application
Sec 1. Rule 61
At the commencement of the proper action or
proceeding, or at any time prior to the judgment or final
order, a verified application for support pendente lite may
be filed by any party stating the grounds for the claim and
the financial conditions of both parties, and accompanied
by affidavits, depositions or other authentic documents in
support thereof. (1a)
 a. Francisco v. Zandueta, G.R. No. 43794,
[August 9, 1935], 61 PHIL 752-759
When is application filed:
At the commencement of the proper action or proceeding, or at FACTS:
anytime prior to the judgment of final order.
Private respondent Eugenio, represented by his natural mother
How and by whom application is file: Rosario, filed a petition for support pendente lite against herein
By a verified application for support pendente lite, filed by any petitioner Francisco, alleging that Eugenio agreed for a monthly
party pension of 30 pesos, supported by affidavit. Francisco filed an
answer contending that he never acknowledged Eugenio as his
What to alleged; son, he was not present at the baptism of the plaintiff and that
Stating the grounds of the claim and the financial conditions of he was married at the time Eugenio was born. The respondent
both the parties and accompanied by affidavits, depositions or judge ruled in favor of Eugenio and his mother Rosario.
other authentic documents in support thereof. Petitioner now claims that Eugenio’s right for monthly support
cannot be enforced until his status as a child of Francisco is
JURISDICTION determined.
as a basic rule involving provisional remedies, the jurisdiction of
such lies where the main action is pending. ISSUE:

As such an support pendente lite is an incident of actions, Whether the contention of Francisco is correct?
involving, annulment, declaration of nullity of marriage, legal
separation and support. Such cases fall in the exclusive RULING:
jurisdiction of the family court under RA 8369.
Yes. The action for support is brought by a minor, through his
Instances where municipal courts have jurisdiction to grant guardian ad litem, who alleges that he is the son of the
support pendente lite. petitioner; therefore, it is necessary for him to prove his civil
status as such son. There is no law or reason which authorizes
As a rule municipal Trial Courts have no jurisdiction to grant the granting of support to a person who claims to be a son in the
support pendente lite because it is an action n that is incapable same manner as to a person who establishes by legal proof that
of pecuniary estimation irrespective of the amount involved. he is such son. In the latter case the legal evidence raises a
presumption of law, while in the former there is no presumption,
However in certain criminal cases where the civil liability there is nothing but a mere allegation, a fact in issue, and a
includes support for the offspring as a consequence of the crime simple fact in issue must not be confounded with an established
and the civil aspect therof has not been waived, reserved and right recognized by a final judgment.
instituted prior to its filing, the accused may be ordered to The civil status of sonship being denied and this civil status,
provide support pendente lite to the child born to the offended from which the right to support is derived, being in issue, it is
party allegedly because of the crime. apparent that no effect can be given to such a claim until an
authoritative declaration has been made as to the existence of
the cause.
 b. Coquia v. Baltazar, G.R. No. L-2942, W/N respondent judge was correct in granting the petition for
[December 29, 1949], 85 PHIL 265-267 alimony pendente lite and later issuing a writ of execution

FACTS: RULING:

Respondents, assisted by their mother and guardian ad litem, No. Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, which authorizes the granting
filed an action in the CFI of Leyte against the petitioner spouses of alimony pendente lite "at the commencement of the proper
to recover the possession as owner of four parcels of land. action, or at any time afterwards but prior to final judgment," is
Three parcels belong pro indiviso to Alfredo Coquia, his sister, not applicable here.
and the petitioner Silvestra. The fourth parcel is alleged to
belong exclusively to Alfredo, now deceased, upon the The action commenced before the respondent Judge Baltazar
allegation that respondents are acknowledged natural children was not for support but for the recovery of the ownership and
and the sole heirs of Alfredo. possession of real property. Such an action is not "the proper
action" contemplated by Rule 63. The mere fact that the
respondents have legal and equitable rights in the property they
seek to recover does not authorize the court to compel the
The petitioners in their answer denied that the respondents are petitioners to support the respondents pending the
acknowledged natural children of the deceased Alfredo. determination of the suit.

Pending the trial of the case, respondents filed a petition for Moreover, petitioners, who are sister and brother-in-law
alimony pendente lite which Judge Piccio granted in the sum of respectively of the deceased Alfredo, are not bound to support
P200 a month (subsequently reduced to P100 a month), the alleged natural children of the latter. Under article 143 of the
“considering the legal and equitable rights of said respondents Civil Code only the following are bound to support each other:
in the land in question in which they have interests and their (1) husband and wife; (2) legitimate ascendants and
actual destitute situation while the petitioners are possessed of descendants; and (3) parents and acknowledged natural
considerable real properties.” children, and the legitimate descendants of the latter.

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which respondent Even in an action for divorce and alimony, it has been held that
Judge Baltazar denied, holding that the order of Judge Piccio for the court has no jurisdiction to grant alimony pendente lite
alimony pendente lite was well founded. Judge Baltazar then where the answer to the complaint alleging marriage and
ordered the issuance of a writ of execution against the praying for divorce denies the fact of marriage, because the
petitioners to collect the sum of P400 corresponding to four right of a wife to support depends upon her status as such, and
months of unpaid alimony. where the existence of such status is put in issue by the
pleading, it cannot be presumed to exist for the purpose of
Petitioners filed the present petition for certiorari to annul the granting alimony.
above-mentioned orders.
The petition is granted and the orders of respondent Judge
ISSUE: Baltazar are hereby set aside.
 request, he is placed in a position where he could not pay his
obligation due to his inability to negotiate with said properties.

c. Mangoma v. Macadaeg, G.R. No. L-5153, ISSUE: Whether the respondent judge erred in granting the motion for
[December 10, 1951], 90 PHIL 508-512) support pendent lite.

FACTS: RULING:

1. Based on Respondent Bautista’s motion for support pendente lite, Yes.

while their marriage was still subsisting, petitioner contracted another
marriage with one Luceria Bernardo and abandoned respondent and In the case of Sanchez vs. Zulueta, the Court held that the Court of
two minor daughters and went to live with Bernardo. While the bigamy Appeals erred in not allowing the defendant to present his evidence
case was under investigation, petitioner refused to give any support for the purpose of determining whether it is sufficient prima facie to
to respondent and her children. overcome the application. As the defense should be established and
not merely alleged, it would be unavailing if proof thereof is not
2. Before the petitioner had a chance to present his evidence on his permitted. It is not of course necessary to go fully into the merits of
special defense, respondent judge issued an order granting the the case, it being which it may deem sufficient to enable it to justly
motion and ordering petitioner to give support pendente lite to his resolve the application, one way or the other, in view of the merely
wife and daughter Leticia in the amount of P750 a month and to pay provisional character of the resolution to be entered.
the accrued payments within five days from notice.
Petitioner has not also been given an opportunity to adduce evidence
3. Petitioner objected to the motion pendente lite on the following in support of the defense he has set up against the motion for support
grounds: pendente lite. It appears that the respondent judge commissioned his
deputy clerk to receive evidence the parties may desire to present on
said motion, but that after respondent had presented her evidence
a. Respondent abandoned the conjugal home to live with an American
and before the deputy clerk and been able to complete the hearing,
soldier. b. Respondent also lived with one Celestino Fernandez and
respondent judge issued the order subject of these proceedings
having committed adultery, respondent, therefore, is not entitled to
without giving petitioner an opportunity to present his evidence. It is
support.
true several trials were held before the deputy clerk of court, but there
is nothing to show that petitioner has resorted to dilatory tactics as to
c. Petitioner has no other occupation except that of a real estate justify that action on the motion be taken without receiving his
broker and as such cannot earn more than P20 a month, which is evidence.
barely sufficient to support and maintain the two children under his Before an action is taken on the matter, an opportunity should be
care. given the petitioner to be heard, considering the serious nature of his
special defense.
d. Due to repeated civil and criminal cases filed against him by
respondent, petitioner had to close his titles factory thereby incurring d. Ramos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-
a loss of P5,000, as well as his machine shop, incurring amounting to
31897, [June 30, 1972], 150-A PHIL 996-1006
P30,000.
DOCTRINE
e. Petitioner is heavily indebted to several banks and because of the
lis pendens annotated on his certificate of title upon respondent's
 SEC. 1. Application. — The plaintiff, at the commencement of the
proper action, or at any time afterwards but prior to final In the case of Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, the SC reversed the
judgment, may file an application for support pendente lite, stating order of the CA saying that the trial court erred in granting alimony
the grounds for the claim and the financial conditions of both parties, pendente lite since paternity was not established between the
and shall be accompanied by affidavits, depositions, or other petitioner and the alleged natural father, by saying that support
authentic documents in support thereof. pendente lite being in the nature of a temporary relief, final
FACTS judgment as to the relationship of the natural father and child is
Felisa Lagos, the minors Fernando and Lorraine Lagos filed, not essential. 
with the Court of First Instance of Batangas, a complaint against
Luis T. Ramos for support and damages, alleging that she bore Here, not only had evidence on the alleged relation between the
said children, in consequence of illicit relations with said Ramos, minors and Ramos been introduced in the case at bar. Judgment had,
who had failed and refused to support said minors, moreover, been rendered finding that said relation had been duly
notwithstanding repeated demands, and despite the fact that he established, although an appeal from said judgment was and is still
pending in the Court of Appeals.
has, as a municipal mayor, the means therefor, which she does
not have.
It goes without saying that if, before the rendition of judgment, the trial
court may "provisionally" grant alimony pendente lite, with more
Ramos having denied the main allegations of the complaint and reason may an appellate court exercise a similar authority, after a full
set up a counterclaim for damages, the case proceeded to trial, dress trial and a decision of the trial court on the merits finding that
the claim of filiation and support has been adequately proven — in the
said court rendered judgment for the plaintiffs, sentencing case at bar, beyond doubt — even if such decision were still pending
Ramos to pay each of said minors the sum of P75.00 monthly, appeal taken by the party adjudged to be bound to give such support.
in addition to the aggregate sum of "P2,075.00 representing the
support in arrears for the elder child, Needless to say, the refusal of the trial court to grant, said alimony
pendente lite did not and cannot deprive the appellate court of said
the case was elevated to the court of appeals. CA – Ramos was authority, or even dent the wisdom of the action taken by the latter,
ordered to pay half of the amount due on the appealed decision within considering that the former did not give any plausible reason for its
15 days and once the amount was deposited, the clerk of court is to aforementioned refusal and that the same may have, in fact, been due
deliver the same to Felisa. to the appeal taken by the defendant, whose record on appeal had
already been approved.
ISSUE
WON the CA’s grant of support pendente lite is correct Comment

Section 2. Rule 61. Comment. — A copy of the

RULING application and all supporting documents shall be served
YES. The Sec. 61 of the Rules provides: upon the adverse party, who shall have five (5) days to
SEC. 1. Application. — The plaintiff, at the commencement of the comment thereon unless a different period is fixed by the
proper action, or at any time afterwards but prior to final court upon his motion. The comment shall be verified and
judgment, may file an application for support pendente lite, stating
shall be accompanied by affidavits, depositions or other
the grounds for the claim and the financial conditions of both parties,
and shall be accompanied by affidavits, depositions, or other authentic documents in support thereof. (2a, 3a)
authentic documents in support thereof.
When to comment Section 4. Order. — The court shall determine
A copy of the application and all supporting documents shall be provisionally the pertinent facts, and shall render such
served upon the adverse party, who shall have five (5) days to orders as justice and equity may require, having the
comment thereon unless a different period is fixed by the court regard to the probable outcome of the case and such
upon his motion. other circumstances as may aid in the proper resolution
of the question involved. If the application is granted, the
As to form of comment court shall fix the amount of money to be provisionally
The comment shall be verified and shall be accompanied by paid or such other forms of support as should be
affidavits, depositions or other authentic documents in support provided, taking into account the necessities of the
thereof applicant and the resources or means of the adverse
party, and the terms of payment or mode for providing
Hearing the support. If the application is denied, the principal
case shall be tried and decided as early as possible. (5a)
Section 3. Hearing. — After the comment is filed, or after
the expiration of the period for its filing, the application When to issue an order
shall be set for hearing not more than three (3) days The court shall determine provisionally the pertinent facts, and
thereafter. The facts in issue shall be proved in the same shall render such orders as justice and equity may require,
manner as is provided for evidence on motions having the regard to the probable outcome of the case and such
other circumstances as may aid in the proper resolution of the
When to set the hearing on support pendente lite question involved.
The hearing is set for the application nit more than 3 days after
the comment is filed, or after the expiration of the period for its Effect when the application is granted
filing , the court shall fix the amount of money to be provisionally paid
or such other forms of support as should be provided, taking into
How to prove support pendente lite account the necessities of the applicant and the resources or
The facts in issue shall be proved in the same manner as is means of the adverse party, and the terms of payment or mode
provided for evidence on motions for providing the support.

Evidence required in a support pendente lite If application is denied

Because of the its provisional nature, a court does not need to the principal case shall be tried and decided as early as possible
delve on the merits of the case before it can settle an application
for this relief.
a. Mangonon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
All that a court a court is tasked to do is to determine the kind 125041, [June 30, 2006], 526 PHIL 505-525)
and amount of evidence which may suffice to enable it to justly
resolve the application. DOCTRINE:

Order Under Sec. 4 of Rule 61, a court may temporarily grant support
pendente lite prior to the rendition of judgment or final order. Because
 of its provisional nature, a court does not need to delve fully into the help of US$1,000.00." On top of this, respondent Federico even gave
merits of the case before it can settle an application for this relief. All the twins a treat to Hongkong during their visit to the Philippines.
that a court is tasked to do is determine the kind and amount of Indeed, respondents, by their actuations, have shown beyond doubt
evidence which may suffice to enable it to justly resolve the that the twins are the children of Federico.
application. It is enough that the facts be established by affidavits or
other documentary evidence appearing in the record. Enforcement of Order

FACTS: Section 5. Enforcement of order. — If the adverse party

fails to comply with an order granting support pendente
Petitioner filed in behalf of her then minor children Rica and Rina, a lite, the court shall, motu proprio or upon motion; issue
petition for Declaration of Legitimacy and Support, with an application an order of execution against him, without prejudice to
for support pendent lite. At the time of the institution of the petition, his liability for contempt. (6a)
Rica and Rina were about to enter college in the United States of
When the person ordered to give support pendente lite
America (USA) where petitioner, together with her daughters and
second husband, had moved to and finally settled in. Rica was refuses or fails to do so, any third person who furnished
admitted to the University of Massachusetts (Amherst) while Rina was that support to the applicant may, after due notice and
accepted by the Long Island University and Western New England hearing in the same case obtain a writ of execution to
College. Despite their admissions to said universities, Rica and Rina enforce his right of reimbursement against the person
were, however, financially incapable of pursuing collegiate education. ordered to provide such support.

ISSUE: Effect if adverse party fails to comply with the order of pendente
lite. The court motu proprio shall;
Whether petitioner and her daughters are entitled for support 1. Issue an order of execution against him / adverse party
pendente lite 2. Without prejudice to his ability for contempt

HELD: Effect if a third person gives support

Yes. After the hearings conducted on this matter as well as the Section 5. Enforcement of order. — If the adverse party
evidence presented, we find that petitioner was able to establish, by
fails to comply with an order granting support pendente
prima facie proof, the filiation of her twin daughters to private
respondents and the twins’ entitlement to support pendente lite. In the
lite, the court shall, motu proprio or upon motion; issue
words of the trial court – an order of execution against him, without prejudice to
By and large, the status of the twins as children of Federico cannot be his liability for contempt. (6a)
denied. They had maintained constant communication with their When the person ordered to give support pendente lite
grandfather Francisco. As a matter of fact, respondent Francisco refuses or fails to do so, any third person who furnished
admitted having wrote several letters to Rica and Rina (Exhs. A, B, C, that support to the applicant may, after due notice and
D, E, F, G, G-1 to G-30). In the said letters, particularly at the bottom hearing in the same case obtain a writ of execution to
thereof, respondent Francisco wrote the names of Rica and Rina enforce his right of reimbursement against the person
Delgado. He therefore was very well aware that they bear the ordered to provide such support.
surname Delgado. Likewise, he referred to himself in his letters as
either "Lolo Paco" or "Daddy Paco." In his letter of October 13, 1989
Support in Criminal Cases
(Exh. G-21), he said "as the grandfather, am extending a financial
 2. should the recipient fail to reimburse said amounts the
Support as result of crime person legally obliged to give the support. Should the
Section 6. Support in criminal cases. — In criminal recipient fail to reimburse said amounts, the person who
actions where the civil liability includes support for the provided the same may likewise seek reimbursement
offspring as a consequence of the crime and the civil thereof in a separate action from the person legally obliged
aspect thereof has not been waived, reserved and to give such support
instituted prior to its filing, the accused may be ordered to
provide support pendente lite to the child born to the a. Saavedra v. Estrada, G.R. No. 33795,
offended party allegedly because of the crime. The [September 4, 1931], 56 PHIL
application therefor may be filed successively by the
offended party, her parents, grandparents or guardian
and the State in the corresponding criminal case during
its pendency, in accordance with the procedure FACTS:
established under this Rule
This action was instituted in the Court of First Instance of Cebu by
Restitution Aleida Saavedra against her husband, Ceferino Ybañez Estrada. The
Section 7. Restitution. — When the judgment or final purpose of the complaint is to secure a judgment for maintenance for
the plaintiff and her children from the defendant, who is her husband,
order of the court finds that the person who has been
and to obtain an order requiring him to pay such maintenance not only
providing support pendente lite is not liable therefor, it in the future but for a period in the past, beginning in 1920, during
shall order the recipient thereof to return to the former the which the defendant has contributed nothing for the support of his
amounts already paid with legal interest from the dates of family
actual payment, without prejudice to the right of the
recipient to obtain reimbursement in a separate action Upon hearing the cause the trial court entered an order requiring the
from the person legally obliged to give the support. defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of P200 per month beginning
Should the recipient fail to reimburse said amounts, the September, 1929, the date of the filing of this action, and ending with
person who provided the same may likewise seek the month of March 30, 1930, when this decision was promulgated,
reimbursement thereof in a separate action from the after which he required the defendant to pay, in future installments, a
person legally obliged to give such support monthly stipend of P200, and further to reimburse the plaintiff in the
amount of P2,000 for attorneys' fees, and the costs of the action.
From this judgment the plaintiff appealed.
Effect of judgment finding the person not liable to give support
In case the judgement or final order of the court finds that the
The married life of the spouses appears not to have been happy,
person who has been providing support pendente lite is not owing to the loose morals and violent disposition of the defendant and
liable therefor, his frequent and persistent mistreatment of his wife. In order to
1. it shall order the recipient thereof to return to the former the escape from his abuse, the plaintiff was compelled in 1914 to take
amounts already paid with legal interest from the dates of refuge with all her children in the house of a neighbor. Worst of all,
actual payment, without prejudice to the right of the recipient from a marital point of view, the defendant has been in the habit of
to obtain reimbursement in a separate action from the using the servant women around his place as mistress, and he has a
person legally obliged to give the support child by a woman who was his servant in years past. At the time this
case was tried, he was in illicit relations with another servant
ISSUE:

Whether the Appellant (wife) is entitled Restitution for unpaid support

by her husband (Appellee)?

HELD:

Yes. The second error is directed to the failure of the lower court to
award judgment for past due maintenance accruing under a
preliminary order in case No. 3335, effective September, 1920, and
running until the present action was instituted. In this connection it
appears that an order for maintenance pendente lite was entered by
the trial court in that case, and nothing has ever been paid upon said
account. Nevertheless, it appears that, on May 21, 1926, the herein
plaintiff, also plaintiff in case No. 3335, cause said action to be
dismissed, in reliance upon the defendant's promises. The dismissal
of the said case necessarily had the effect of abrogating the order for
maintenance pendente lite, and placed the plaintiff in a position where
she is unable to enforce that order. An order pendente lite is in its very
nature contingent, and the dismissal of the action had the effect of
abrogating the order.
It appears, however, that as a result of the failure of the defendant to
pay said maintenance under the order referred to, the present plaintiff
has been compelled to incur debts for the maintenance of herself and
family, and to pay these debts, so far as they have been paid, she has
been compelled to sacrifice valuable paraphernal property under
authority granted by the court. The amount which the plaintiff has
been compelled to disburse in this way, and the value of the
paraphernal property sacrificed, or obligations incurred, have not been
proved; and while it is obvious that the defendant is under an
obligation to reimburse the plaintiff for these outlays and sacrifices, we
are not in a position to give her relief as to such items, under the
prayer of the present complaint. But the order hereinafter made for the
affirmance of the judgment in this respect will be made without
prejudice to her right hereafter, by independent action, or in the
ultimate liquidation of the conjugal estate, to be reimbursed as to the
matters mentioned.