When is injunction proper? - G.R. No. 152272

G.R. No. 152272

"x x x.

In the case at bench, JCHA, et al. failed to establish a prima facieproof of violation of their right to justify the issuance of a WPI. Their right to the use of La Paz Road is disputable since they have no clear legal right therein. As correctly ruled by the CA:

Here, contrary to the ruling of respondent Judge, private respondents failed to prove as yet that they have a clear and unmistakable right over the La Paz Road – which was sought to be protected by the injunctive writ. They merely anchor their purported right over the La Paz Road on the bare allegation that they have been using the same as public road right-of-way for more than ten years. A mere allegation does not meet the standard of proof that would warrant the issuance of the injunctive writ. Failure to establish the existence of a clear right which should be judicially protected through the writ of injunction is a sufficient ground for denying the injunction.

Consequently, the case should be further heard by the RTC so that the parties can fully prove their respective positions on the issues.

Due process considerations dictate that the assailed injunctive writ is not a judgment on the merits but merely an order for the grant of a provisional and ancillary remedy to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard. The hearing on the application for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is separate and distinct from the trial on the merits of the main case.[29] The evidence submitted during the hearing of the incident is not conclusive or complete for only a "sampling" is needed to give the trial court an idea of the justification for the preliminary injunction pending the decision of the case on the merits.[30] There are vital facts that have yet to be presented during the trial which may not be obtained or presented during the hearing on the application for the injunctive writ.[31] Moreover, the quantum of evidence required for one is different from that for the other.[32]

 x x x."