Scribd
Upload
43 views10 pages

Lagrosas V Bristol Myers: G.R. NO. 168637 SEPTEMBER 12, 2008

The document discusses two court cases: 1) Lagrosas v. Bristol-Myers, where the Court of Appeals disallowed the discharge of an injunction cash bond. The Supreme Court ruled no damages were incurred by Lagrosas due to the temporary restraining order and writ of injunction. 2) Jenosa v. Delariarte, where the Supreme Court ruled the complaint for injunction was improper because the petitioners did not come to court with clean hands, having reneged on their agreement without justification.

Uploaded by

Alan Buenaventura
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
43 views10 pages

Lagrosas V Bristol Myers: G.R. NO. 168637 SEPTEMBER 12, 2008

The document discusses two court cases: 1) Lagrosas v. Bristol-Myers, where the Court of Appeals disallowed the discharge of an injunction cash bond. The Supreme Court ruled no damages were incurred by Lagrosas due to the temporary restraining order and writ of injunction. 2) Jenosa v. Delariarte, where the Supreme Court ruled the complaint for injunction was improper because the petitioners did not come to court with clean hands, having reneged on their agreement without justification.

Uploaded by

Alan Buenaventura
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 10

LAGROSAS V

BRISTOL
MYERS
G.R. NO. 168637
SEPTEMBER 12, 2008

Tamayo, Michael Angelo G. 2019-0661


ISSUE
WHETHER OR NOT CA ERRED IN
DISALLOWING THE DISCHARGE AND
RELEASE OF THE INJUNCTION CASH BOND?
YES!
NO FINAL JUDGMENT YET.

PETITIONER PENDING LABOR CASE WITH


LAGROSAS THE SUPREME COURT
CA ALREADY RULED THAT
NO DAMAGE WAS INCURRED
BRISTOL BY LAGROSAS DUE TO THE
TRO AND WRIT OF
MYERS INJUNCTION
• Purpose of a Preliminary Injunction: 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.
• The injunction bond is intended as a security
for damages in case it is finally decided that
the injunction ought not to have been
granted. Its principal purpose is to protect the
enjoined party against loss or damage by reason
RATIO of the injunction, and the bond is usually
conditioned accordingly.
RATIO
• CA ruled that Lagrosas had no right to the monetary awards, and that the
implementation of the writ of execution and notices of garnishment was
properly enjoined. This in effect amounted to a finding that Lagrosas did
not sustain any damage by reason of the injunction.

• To reiterate, the injunction bond is intended to protect Lagrosas


against loss or damage by reason of the injunction only. Contrary to
Lagrosas’ claim, it is not a security for the judgment award by the
labor arbiter.
JENOSA V
DELARIARTE
G.R. NO. 168637
SEPTEMBER 12, 2008
ISSUE
WHETHER OR NOT complaint for
Injunction was proper?
NO!
• Since petitioners’ present complaint is one for
injunction, and injunction is the strong arm of
equity, petitioners must come to court with
clean hands

• 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, and (2) he
RATIO who comes into equity must come with clean
hands.
• Here, petitioners, having reneged on their
agreement without any justifiable reason,
come to court with unclean hands. This Court
may deny a litigant relief if his conduct has
been inequitable, unfair and dishonest as to
the controversy in issue.

RATIO

You might also like