PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, versus CASTALLOY TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, ALLIED INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, ALINSU STEEL FOUNDRY CORPORATION,

GLORIA C. NGO and TOMAS C. NGO, JR., Respondents. G.R. No. 178 !7, March 19, 2012 The grounds for the issuance of a preliminary injunction are enumerated in Section 3, Rule ! of the Rules of "ourt, #hich reads$ Sec% 3% Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction. & preliminary injunction may 'e granted #hen it is esta'lished$ (a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the #hole or part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, or in re*uiring the performance of an act or acts, either for a limited period or perpetually+ (') That the commission, continuance or non,performance of the act or acts complained of during the litigation #ould pro'a'ly #or- injustice to the applicant+ or (c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to 'e done, some act or acts pro'a'ly in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the su'ject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual%

.n a line of cases, this "ourt has e/plained this rule and emphasi0ed that a #rit of preliminary injunction is issued to preserve the status quo ante, upon the applicant1s sho#ing of "#o $%&o'"an" '()*$+$"( ,ond$"$on+, namely$ -1. "/( '$0/" "o 1( &'o"(,"(d (2$+"+ prima facie, and -3. "/( a,"+ +o*0/" "o 1( (n4o$n(d a'( 5$o6a"$5( o7 "/a" '$0/". .t must 'e proven that the violation sought to 'e prevented #ould cause an irrepara'le injustice% .n China Banking Corporation v. C , #e e/plained$ & #rit of preliminary injunction, as an ancillary or preventive remedy, may only 'e resorted to 'y a litigant to protect or preserve his rights or interests and for no other purpose during the pendency of the principal action% 2ut 1(7o'( a #'$" o7 &'(6$%$na'8 $n4*n,"$on %a8 1( $++*(d, "/('( %*+" 1( a ,6(a' +/o#$n0 18 "/( ,o%&6a$n" "/a" "/('( (2$+"+ a '$0/" "o 1( &'o"(,"(d

and "/a" "/( a,"+ a0a$n+" #/$,/ "/( #'$" $+ "o 1( d$'(,"(d a'( 5$o6a"$5( o7 "/( +a$d '$0/". &s regards to the element of irrepara'le injury% &n injury is considered irrepara'le if it is of such constant and fre*uent recurrence that no fair or reasona'le redress can 'e had therefor in a court of la#, or #here there is no standard 'y #hich their amount can 'e measured #ith reasona'le accuracy, that is, it is not suscepti'le of mathematical computation% The provisional remedy of preliminary injunction may only 'e resorted to #hen there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious conse*uences #hich cannot 'e remedied under any standard of compensation% PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, vs% COURT OF APPEALS and ROMEO BARILEA, respondents% G.R. No. 131391, J*n( 3!, 1::8 .n the instant case, aside from the principal action for damages, private respondent sought the issuance of a temporary restraining order and #rit of preliminary injunction to enjoin the foreclosure sale in order to prevent an alleged irrepara'le injury to private respondent% .t is settled that these injunctive reliefs are preservative remedies for the protection of su'stantive rights and interests% In4*n,"$on $+ no" a ,a*+( o7 a,"$on $n $"+(67 1*" %('(68 a &'o5$+$ona6 '(%(d8, an ad4*n," "o a %a$n +*$". ;/(n "/( a," +o*0/" "o 1( (n4o$n(d /ad 1(,o%( fait accompli, on68 "/( &'a8(' 7o' &'o5$+$ona6 '(%(d8 +/o*6d 1( d(n$(d. 3o#ever, the trial court should still proceed #ith the determination of the principal action so that an adjudication of the rights of the parties can 'e had% .t #as grave error for the trial court to dismiss the case simply 'ecause the 'asis for the issuance of the #rit of injunction is no longer e/istent and thus moot and academic% A ,a+( 1(,o%(+ %oo" and a,ad(%$, #/(n "/('( $+ no %o'( a,"*a6 ,on"'o5('+8 1("#((n "/( &a'"$(+ o' no *+(7*6 &*'&o+( ,an 1( +('5(d $n &a++$n0 *&on "/( %('$"+. .t is a rule of universal application that courts of justice are constituted to adjudicate su'stantive rights% 4hile courts should consider pu'lic policy and necessity in putting an end to litigations speedily they must nevertheless harmoni0e such necessity #ith the fundamental right of litigants to an opportunity to 'e heard% SPOUSES DAISY and SOCRATES M. AREVALO, Petitioners, versus PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF PARAAQUE CITY, Respondents. G. R. No. 1 !"1#, April 18, 2012 A case becomes moot and academic when there is no more actual controversy between the parties or useful purpose that can be served in passing upon the merits. pon its dismissal, the !uestion of the

non"issuance of a writ of preliminary in#unction necessarily died with it. A writ of preliminary in#unction is a provisional remedy. $t is au%iliary to, an ad#unct of, and sub#ect to the outcome of the main case. &hus, a writ of preliminary in#unction is deemed lifted upon dismissal of the main case, any appeal therefrom notwithstanding, as this 'ourt emphasi(ed in Buyco v. Baraquia from which we !uote) T$% &'() (* +'o,(*(ona- .%/a0*% () /on*)()0)%* a )%1+o'a'2 1%a*0'% a,a(-%d o3 d0'(n4 )$% +%nd%n/2 o3 )$% a/)(on and () (* an/(--a'2 .%/a0*% () (* a 1%'% (n/(d%n) (n and (* d%+%nd%n) 0+on )$% '%*0-) o3 )$% 1a(n a/)(on. $t is well"settled that the sole ob#ect of a preliminary in#unction, whether prohibitory or mandatory, is to preserve the status !uo until the merits of the case can be heard. $t is usually granted when it is made to appear that there is a substantial controversy between the parties and one of them is committing an act or threatening the immediate commission of an act that will cause irreparable in#ury or destroy the status !uo of the controversy before a full hearing can be had on the merits of the case. %%% % %%% %%

T$% +'%*%n) /a*% $a,(n4 .%%n $%a'd and 3o0nd d(*1(**(.-% a* () &a* (n 3a/) d(*1(**%d, )$% &'() o3 +'%-(1(na'2 (n50n/)(on (* d%%1%d -(3)%d, ()* +0'+o*% a* a +'o,(*(ona- '%1%d2 $a,(n4 .%%n *%',%d, )$% a++%a- )$%'%3'o1 no)&()$*)and(n4.

nionban* v. 'ourt of Appeals enlightens) %%% a d(*1(**a-, d(*/on)(n0an/% o' non6*0() o3 an a/)(on (n &$(/$ a '%*)'a(n(n4 o'd%' o' )%1+o'a'2 (n50n/)(on $a* .%%n 4'an)%d o+%'a)%* a* a d(**o-0)(on o3 )$% '%*)'a(n(n4 o'd%' o' )%1+o'a'2 (n50n/)(on,+ regardless of whether the period for filing a motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing the case or appeal therefrom has e%pired. T$% 'a)(ona-% )$%'%3o' (* )$a) %,%n (n /a*%* &$%'% an a++%a- (* )a7%n 3'o1 a 50d41%n) d(*1(**(n4 an a/)(on on )$% 1%'()*, )$% a++%a- do%* no) *0*+%nd )$% 50d41%n), $%n/% )$% 4%n%'a- '0-% a++-(%* )$a) a )%1+o'a'2 (n50n/)(on )%'1(na)%* a0)o1a)(/a--2 on )$% d(*1(**a- o3 )$% a/)(on.