Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1902 > December 1902 Decisions > G.R. No. 1120 December 8, 1902 - DY CHUAN LENG, ET AL. v. BYRON S. AMBLER

001 Phil 535:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 1120. December 8, 1902. ]

DY CHUAN LENG ET AL., Petitioners, v. BYRON S. AMBLER, judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Respondent.

Joaquin Rodriguez Serra, for Petitioner.

Byron S. Ambler, for Respondent.

SYLLABUS


1. PROHIBITION; JURISDICTION. — Errors committed by a trial court in granting preliminary injunctions, appointing receivers, fixing bonds, and the like, in an action to dissolve a partnership must be corrected by appeal and not by prohibition.


D E C I S I O N


WILLARD, J. :


An action was regularly brought in the Court of First Instance by Ang Ban Ka against Dy Chuan Leng and Lee Gu.

The object of the action was to dissolve a partnership alleged by the plaintiff to exist between the plaintiff and defendants.

There was a prayer in the complaint for a preliminary injunction and the appointment of a receiver. A preliminary injunction was granted ex parte and a motion to dissolve it denied.

The defendants demurred to the complaint. This demurrer is still pending decision.

The court below has notified the defendants that he intends to appoint a receiver.

The said defendants have now filed in this court a complaint under article 516, Code of Civil Procedure, asking that the judge of Part 3, in which the said action is pending, be prohibited from continuing the preliminary injunction, and from appointing a receiver. The petitioners ask also for an injunction in accordance with article 518.

We can not grant an injunction under this section unless there is a compliance with articles 164 and 166.

It must appear from the complaint that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the action. If the complaint states no cause of action no preliminary injunction can be issued. The complaint filed in this court is defective in this respect. It shows upon its face that the petitioners are not entitled to an order of prohibition against the court below. That court had jurisdiction of the action to dissolve the partnership. In that action it had the power to grant a preliminary injunction (article 164), and to appoint a receiver (article 174). Having those powers, if in the exercise of them any errors were committed, they could be corrected only on appeal from the final judgment. The facts as alleged, that the complaint was ambiguous; that the judge believed that the plaintiff below was a partner when the defendants denied it; that he fixed the bond at $1,000 instead of $30,000, as requested by the defendants; that no mention of the bond was made in the writ of injunction; that he refused to hear the defendants’ witnesses; that he refused to dissolve the injunction upon a bond which the defendants offered to give, all of these do not show that the court was acting outside of its jurisdiction. They simply show, if they are true, that the court has committed certain errors in exercising its jurisdiction, errors which must be corrected by appeal. (Re Prautch, February 14, 1902).

In the case of Yangco v. Rohde, October 13, 1902, we denied a writ of prohibition on the ground that in no case, where the fact of marriage was denied did the Court of First Instance have any jurisdiction to grant temporary alimony. That case differs radically from this one.

It is of course apparent that in passing upon this preliminary motion, we have virtually decided the case upon the present complaint. We see, however, no escape from that result.

The motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Cooper, Smith, Mapa and Ladd, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1902 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 970 December 1, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. TEODORO REYES

    001 Phil 517

  • G.R. No. 571 December 3, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. THOMAS E. KEPNER

    001 Phil 519

  • G.R. No. 1005 December 3, 1902 - JOSE V. L. GONZAGA v. W.F. NORRIS

    001 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 1035 December 4, 1902 - MARIA DEL CARMEN VIUDA DE BUSTILLOS v. ROQUE GARBANZOS

    001 Phil 532

  • G.R. No. 21 December 8, 1902 - SIMONA BRILLANTES v. MANUEL BRILLANTES ET AL.

    001 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 1120 December 8, 1902 - DY CHUAN LENG, ET AL. v. BYRON S. AMBLER

    001 Phil 535

  • G.R. No. 926 December 9, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. PAULO CATEQUISTA

    001 Phil 537

  • G.R. No. 593 December 10, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. JOAQUIN FERNANDEZ Y HERRERIAS ET AL.

    001 Phil 539

  • G.R. No. 891 December 11, 1902 - JUANA DOMINGO v. WARDEN OF BILIBID PRISON

    001 Phil 542

  • G.R. No. 919 December 11, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE SOTELO

    001 Phil 544

  • G.R. No. 868 December 15, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN SANTIAGO

    001 Phil 545

  • G.R. No. 1026 December 15, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. VICTORINO CORREA ET AL.

    001 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. 1078 December 15, 1902 - JOHN W. HOEY v. R. S. BALDWIN

    001 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. 574 December 17, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. BONIFACIO MODAMA

    001 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 513 December 19, 1902 - BENITO LEGARDA Y TUASON v. VICENTE GARCIA VALDEZ

    001 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 944 December 19, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. UBALDO BORNALES

    001 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. 945 December 19, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. MELCHOR ABELINDE ET AL

    001 Phil 568

  • G.R. No. 960 December 19, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. BIBIANO CAPISONDA

    001 Phil 575

  • G.R. No. 991 December 19, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO NAVA

    001 Phil 580

  • G.R. No. 861 December 20, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINGO VIERA

    001 Phil 584

  • G.R. No. 850 December 23, 1902 - LOS HIJOS DE I. DE LA RAMA v. ERIBERTO MIJARES

    001 Phil 585

  • G.R. No. 1003 December 23, 1902 - PIO LABAYEN v. ROSENDO HERNAEZ

    001 Phil 587

  • G.R. No. 551 December 24, 1902 - MARIANO DEVEZA v. SIMEON GUINOO

    001 Phil 589

  • G.R. No. 81 December 27, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. RAMON GOMEZ RICOY

    001 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. 34 December 31, 1902 - PABLO PALMA v. JUAN CAÑIZARES

    001 Phil 602

  • G.R. No. 483 December 31, 1902 - DAMIAN HERMITAÑO v. MARCELINO CLARITO

    001 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. 496 December 31, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. WILLIAM FOWLER ET AL.

    001 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. 899 December 31, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. FELICITAS ORTIZ

    001 Phil 616

  • G.R. No. 932 December 31, 1902 - PEDRO REGALADO v. LUCHSINGER & CO.

    001 Phil 619