Los Baños Rural Bank vs Africa

Petitioner Los Baños questioned the decision of the Court of Appeals in granting respondent Pacita Africa's application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain petitioner from proceeding with the foreclosure and consolidation of the title over the subject property after such property was allegedly sold to Macy Africa by forging Pacita Africa's signature.

Los Baños argued that they should not be enjoined from foreclosing hte property because the foreclosure sale has long been effected and since it is a consummated act, it can no longer be restrained.

The SC held that in the instant case, the status quo was the situation of the parties at the time of filing the Amended Complaint, at the poin where the property was already foreclosed. But, the last actual uncontested status that preceeded the conroversy was when the property in dispute was still registered int he name of Macy Africa, petitioner not having consolidated in its name the title thereto.

Moreover, the court also held that the requisites for the issuance of a preliminary injunction are present and established by Pacita Africa. A writ of preliminary injunction is issued to preserve the status quo ante, upon an applican't showing of two important requisites; namely: (1) the right to be protected exists prima facie, and (2) the acts sought to be enjoined are violative of that right. It must be proven that the violation sought to be prevented would cause an irreparable injustice.

The issuance of the wirt of preliminary injuction would no doubt preserve the status quo.

Provisional Remedies

List of Cases
July 15, 2008


1. Los Baños Rural Bank vs Africa 384 SCRA 535
2. Mabayo Farms Inc. cs Court of Appeals
3. Dayrit vs Philippine Bank of Communications 386 scra 117 (murag wala jud ni labot bah)
4. G & S Transport vs Court of Appeals 382 SCRA 262
5. Bustamante vs Court of Appeals 381 SCRA 171
6. Rosario Textile Mills Inc. vs Court of Appeals 409 SCRA 515


Receivership:

1. Commodities Storage & Ice Plant Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 274 SCRA 439
2. Francisco vs Rodriguez 6 SCRA 443
3. Alcantara vs Abbas 9 SCRA 54
4. Philtrust vs Ata. Maria 53 P 463

Phil. Sinter vs Cagayan Electric Light and Power Company

Whether or not an injunction lies against the final and executory judgment of the Energy Regulatory Board?

No. After a judgment has gained finality, it becomes the ministerial duty of the court to order its execution. No court, perforce, should interfere by injunction or otherwise to restrain such execution. The rule, however, concededly admits of exceptions; hence, when facts and circumstances later transpire that would render execution inequitable or unjust, the interested party may ask a competent court to stay its execution or prevent its enforcement. So, also, a change int he situation of parties can warrant an injunctive relief.

Preliminary Injunction

Cases July 8, 2008:

1. First Global Realty & Development vs San Agustin
2. Feranil vs Arcilla

The two cases above have discussed the requisites and purpose for the issuance of preliminary injunction.