Facts:
Issue:
Whether the respondent is entitled to an Injunctive relief.
Held:
No, a writ of preliminary injunction and a TRO are injunctive reliefs and preservative remedies for the protection of substantive rights and interests. To be entitled to the injunctive writ, the applicant must show that: (a) there exists a clear and unmistakable right to be protected; (b) this right is directly threatened by an act sought to be enjoined; (c) the invasion of the right is material and substantial; and (d) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious and irreparable damage. The grant or denial of an injunctive relief in a pending case rests on the sound discretion of the court since the assessment and evaluation of evidence towards that end involve findings of fact left for the conclusive determination of the said court.” Hence, the exercise of judicial discretion by a court in injunctive matters must not be interfered with, except when there is grave abuse of discretion.” The burden is, thus, on the applicant to show that there is meritorious ground for the issuance of a TRO in his favor, since an application for injunctive relief is construed strictly against him. Here, Dimson failed to sufficiently show the presence of the requisites to warrant the issuance of a TRO against the CDO and the Closure Order of Mayor Cayabyab.
adrianantazo.com 