The following observation of this Court in Golding vs. Balatbat, 4 is applicable to the case before us:

The very foundation of the jurisdiction to issue writ of injunction rests in the existence of a cause of action and in the probability of irreparable injury, inadequacy of pecuniary compensation and the prevention of the multiplicity of suits. Where facts are not shown to bring the case with these conditions, the relief of injunction should be refused.

It has been consistently held that there is no power the exercise of which is more delicate, which requires greater caution, deliberation and sound discretion, or more dangerous in a doubtful case, than the issuance of an injunction. It is the strong arm of equity that should never be extended unless to cases of great injury, where courts of law cannot afford an adequate or commensurate remedy in damages. 5

Every court should remember that an injunction is a limitation upon the freedom of action of the defendant and should not be granted lightly or precipitately. It should be granted only when the court is fully satisfied that the law permits it and the emergency demands it.

Maintenance of the preliminary injunction issued by the trial court would prevent the petitioner from using her accustomed business name and require her to operate in the market under a different name unfamiliar to her customers. This would be unfair under the circumstances. As we have held that the private respondent has not sufficiently shown that she is entitled to this remedy, it is just and equitable that it be lifted until the dispute between the parties is thoroughly threshed out and finally resolved after trial on the merits.

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 87913             May 6, 1991
LEONOR A. OLALIA and her husband JESUS G. OLALIA, petitioners,
vs.
LOLITA O HIZON, represented by her Atty. In Fact, ATTY. ABRAHAM P. GOROS