Now, as to the regularity and propriety in the issuance of the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, Sec. 3, Rule 58 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction may be granted if the following requisites are met:
(1) The applicant must have a clear and unmistakable right, that is a right in esse;
(2) There is a material and substantial invasion of such right; and
(3) There is an urgent need for the writ to prevent irreparable injury to the applicant; and no other ordinary, speedy, and adequate remedy exists to prevent the infliction of irreparable injury.
In numerous instances and recently in Marquez v. The Presiding Judge (Hon. Ismael B. Sanchez), RTC Br. 58, Lucena City, the Supreme Court explained that the writ of preliminary injunction is issued to prevent threatened or continuous irremediable injury to some of the parties before their claims can be thoroughly studied and adjudicated. Its sole aim is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard fully. Thus, it will be issued only upon a showing of a clear and unmistakable right that is violated. Moreover, an urgent necessity for its issuance must be shown by the applicant. The Supreme Court held in Marquez: It is basic that the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, conditioned on the existence of a clear and positive right of the applicant which should be protected. It is an extraordinary, peremptory remedy available only on the grounds expressly provided by law, specifically Section 3, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court.Moreover, extreme caution must be observed in the exercise of such discretion. It should be granted only when the court is fully satisfied that the law permits it and the emergency demands it.The very foundation of the jurisdiction to issue a writ of injunction rests in the existence of a cause of action and in the probability of irreparable injury, inadequacy of pecuniary compensation, and the prevention of multiplicity of suits. Where facts are not shown to bring the case within these conditions, the relief of injunction should be refused.
The trial court while having sound discretion on its issuance must still satisfy the strict requirements of the law. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the exercise of sound judicial discretion by the lower court in injunctive matters should not be interfered with except in cases of manifest abuse. (G.R. No. 156303; December 19, 2007)
