1

PNB VS PABALAN
June 15, 1978 (83 SCRA 595) Case: FACTS: PNB questions the legality of the writ of execution, notice of garnishment on funds of Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration deposited with it on ground of nonsuability of a state, alleging that such funds are public in character. HELD: Funds of public corporation which can sue and be sued are not exempt from garnishment. PVTA is a public corporation. It is to be admitted that the State may not be sued without its consent. If the funds appertained to one of the regular departments or offices in the government, then certainly such a provision would be a bar to garnishment. In here, garnishment would lie. Funds of a public corporation could properly be made the object of a notice of garnishment. Original action in the Supreme Court certiorari and mandamus with preliminary injunction.

Rule 58

UP VS CATUNGAL, JR.
May 5, 1997 (272 SCRA 221) Case: Certiorari and prohibition. For nullification of orders of respondent judges. FACTS: A UP Diliman faculty member is under administrative proceedings in the UP Tribunal for grave misconduct involving sexual intercourse with minors. HELD: Sec. 3, Rule 58 state the grounds for the grant of preliminary injunction: a) the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, or in requiring the performance of an act or acts, either for a limited period or perpetually; b) the commission, continuance or non-performance of the act or acts complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; c) a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding and tending to render the judgment ineffectual. The court must state its own findings of facts and cite the particular law to justify the grant of preliminary injunction. Since injunction is the strong arm of equity, he who must apply for it must come with equity or with clean hands. This is so because among the maxims of equity are: 1. He who seeks equity must do equity; 2) he who comes into equity must do equity. He who has done inequity shall not have equity. It signifies that a litigant may be denied relief by a court of equity on the ground that his conduct has been inequitable, unfair and dishonest, or fraudulent or deceitful as to the controversy in issue.

Rule 58

CHINA BANKING CORP. VS. CA

December 5, 1996 (265 SCRA 327) FACTS: China Bank extended loan to Native West and So Ching. The latter executed promissory notes and mortgages. The loans matured, unpaid despite demands. Bank petitioned for extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgages. Native West and So Ching filed complaint for accounting with prayer for temporary restraining order to enjoin foreclosure sale. A preliminary injunction was issued. CA dismissed the petition. ISSUE: Whether the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the RTC is valid. HELD: Issuance of writ of injunction is unjustified. A writ of preliminary injunction is an ancillary or preventive remedy. It may only be resorted to by a litigant to protect or preserve his rights or interests and for no other purpose during the pendency of the principal action. But before a writ of preliminary injunction may be issued, there must be a clear showing by the complaint that there exists a right to be protected and that the acts against which the writ is to be directed are violative of the said right. In the case at bench, there is no reason why the foreclosure of the mortgages should be enjoined when private respondents admitted that they were unable to settle their obligations which were secured by the mortgages. Petitioners have a clear right to foreclose the mortgages which is a remedy provided by law.

Rule 58