December 12, 2022 @ 10:56 AM 2 months ago

PRELIMINARY injunction is a provisional remedy (an adjunct to a main suit) intended “to provide protection to parties for the preservation of their rights or interests during the pendency of the principal action.

Its sole purpose is to preserve the status quo—the last actual, peaceable and uncontested situation which precedes a controversy—until the merits of the main case is heard fully.  (A preliminary injunction should not establish new relations between the parties, but merely maintain or re-establish the pre-existing relationship between them.

            The grant of preliminary injunction would have only been provisional and would not be conclusively determinative of the principal action. (Novecio vs. Lim, Jr., March 23, 2015)

As the term itself suggests, a preliminary injunction is merely temporary; it is to be resorted to only when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences that cannot be remedied under any standard of compensation.  (Los Baños Rural Bank, Inc. vs. Africa, July 11, 2002)

A preliminary injunction is an order “granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a party or a court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts. It may also require the performance of a particular act or acts, in which case it shall be known as a preliminary mandatory injunction.” (Sec. 1, Rule 58, Rules of Court)

As defined, preliminary injunction is either (1) a prohibitory preliminary injunction or (2) a mandatory preliminary injunction. Generally, a prohibitory injunction restrains acts which have not been performed, but are about to be performed, while a mandatory injunction commands a party, a court, an agency person to perform specific act or acts.

            To be entitled to the injunctive writ, one must show that (1) there exists a clear and unmistakeable right to be protected; (2) this right is directly threatened by an act sought to be enjoined; (3) the invasion of the rights is material and substantial; and (4) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious and irreparable damage. (Dulnuan v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, July 08, 2015)

It must be noted, however, that while a clear showing if the right is necessary, its existence need not be conclusively established. In fact, the evidence required to justify the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction in the hearing thereon need not be conclusive or complete. The evidence need only be a “sampling” intended merely to give the court an idea of the justification for the preliminary injunction, pending the decision of the case on the merits. (Los Baños Rural Bank, Inc. vs. Africa, July 11, 2002)


            While a preliminary injunction persists until it is dissolved or until the termination of the action without the court issuing a final injunction, a temporary restraining order preserves the status quo until the hearing of the application for preliminary injunction. (Bicol Medical Center v. Botor, October 04, 2017)

Moreover, preliminary injunction cannot be granted without hearing, while TRO may be granted ex parte if great and irreparable injury would result to the applicant before the matter can be heard on notice. A preliminary injunction is effective during the pendency of the action involved, while a TRO is effective for a period of 20 days if issued by the Regional Trial Court; 60 days if issued by Court of Appeals or a member thereof; and until further orders if issued by the Supreme Court or a member thereof.


The main action for injunction is distinct from the provisional or ancillary remedy of preliminary injunction which cannot exist except only as part or an incident of an independent action or proceeding.

Under the law, the main action for injunction seeks a judgment embodying a final injunction which is distinct from, and should not be confused with, the provisional remedy of preliminary injunction, the sole object of which is to preserve the status quo until the merits can be heard. (Evy Construction and Development Corporation vs. Valiant Roll Forming Sales Corporation, October 11, 2017)