Practice question
A developer seeks an ordinary possessory injunction solely to protect expected resort profits. The complaint alleges no environmental-right violation or extreme urgency supporting a TEPO. An appellate court excuses the ordinary injunction bond merely by calling the writ akin to a TEPO. Under Aquino, which is correct?
- The analogy alone is insufficient; an ordinary injunction cannot be converted into a TEPO to avoid its applicable bond requirement
- Every coastal property injunction is automatically a TEPO
- Every commercial loss establishes a TEPO
- The bond exemption applies to all injunctions
- Calling a writ environmental cures missing substantive allegations
Legal references
- Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, AM09-6-8-SC, Rule2 Sections8–11; Rule6 Sections2–4; Rule19 Sections1–3: https://lawphil.net/courts/supreme/am/am_09-6-8-sc_2010.html
- Aquino v Agua Tierra Oro Mina Development Corporation, GR214926, January25,2023, MAIN opinion, TEPO distinguished from ordinary preliminary injunction: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2023/jan2023/gr_214926_2023.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.