ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
November-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 44260 November 2, 1938 - MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA v. MARIA PAZ MARCIANA GUIDOTE, ET AL.

    066 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 46375 November 2, 1938 - GERONIMO SANTIAGO v. HERMENEGILDO ATIENZA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 44372 November 3, 1938 - BENITO GARCIA v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    066 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 44493 November 3, 1938 - MARIANO ANGELES v. ELENA SAMIA

    066 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. 46270 November 3, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS L. DE LA PEÑA

    066 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 46085 November 4, 1938 - BULACAN BUS COMPANY, INC. v. FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ

    066 Phil 454

  • G.R. No. 44552 November 7, 1938 - ONG LIONG TIAK v. LUNETA MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.

    066 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. 44634 November 9, 1938 - BALTAZAR ALUNEN, ET AL. v. TILAN

    066 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. 44778 November 9, 1938 - PROVINCE OF TAYABAS v. SIMEON PEREZ, ET AL.

    066 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. 44802 November 16, 1938 - FRANCISCO SABAS v. FRANCISCO GARMA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 44843 November 17, 1938 - CARLOS YOUNG v. FRANCISCO M. BLANCO

    066 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 44911 November 21, 1938 - ALEJANDRO IBARRA v. SEGUNDO AGUSTIN

    066 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 44257 November 22, 1938 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION, ET AL.

    066 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 45792 November 22, 1938 - SWAN, CULBERTSON & FRITZ v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    066 Phil 525

  • G.R. No. 45046 November 23, 1938 - PEOPLES BANK & TRUST CO. v. MANUEL OLONDRIZ, ET AL.

    066 Phil 537

  • G.R. No. 44518 November 23, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YU GUICOC LAM

    066 Phil 542

  • G.R. No. 44837 November 23, 1938 - SOCORRO LEDESMA, ET AL. v. CONCHITA MCLACHLIN, ET AL.

    066 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 44974 November 23, 1938 - W.S. PRICE v. CEFERINO YBANES, ET AL.

    066 Phil 552

  • G.R. No. 45028 November 25, 1938 - MAXIMO ABARY, ET AL. v. FIDELINO AGAWIN

    066 Phil 558

  • G.R. No. 44671 November 26, 1938 - MACONDRAY & CO., INC. v. ANTONIO E. RUIZ, ET AL.

    066 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 44774 November 26, 1938 - FIDELITY AND SURETY CO. OF THE PHIL. v. ANGEL A. ANSALDO, ET AL.

    066 Phil 566

  • G.R. No. 44834 November 26, 1938 - LA PREVISORA FILIPINA v. FELIX Z. LEDDA

    066 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 44947 November 26, 1938 - ANTONIO LABRADOR, ET AL. v. EMILIANO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

    066 Phil 579

  • G.R. No. 45040 November 26, 1938 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. JULIO TUGAB

    066 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. 45105 November 26, 1938 - MACONDRAY & CO., INC. v. MACARIO JOSE

    066 Phil 590

  • G.R. No. 44602 November 28, 1938 - MARIA CALMA v. ESPERANZA TAÑEDO, ET AL.

    066 Phil 594

  • G.R. No. 44606 November 28, 1938 - VICENTE STO. DOMINGO BERNARDO v. CATALINO BATACLAN

    066 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. 44683 November 28, 1938 - JOAQUIN NAVARRO v. FERNANDO AGUILA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 604

  • G.R. No. 45070 November 28, 1938 - CHIN GUAN v. COMPAÑIA MARITIMA

    066 Phil 608

  • G.R. No. 45260 November 28, 1938 - BARBARA ECHAVARRIA v. ROMAN SARMIENTO, ET AL.

    066 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 46267 November 28, 1938 - FRANCISCO ZANDUETA v. SIXTO DE LA COSTA

    066 Phil 615

  • G.R. No. 44931 November 29, 1938 - FELIX BILANG v. ERLANGER & GALINGER, INC.

    066 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. 45169 November 29, 1938 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. PASAY TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

    066 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. 45344 November 29, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE P. ANCHETA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 638

  • G.R. No. 46040 November 29, 1938 - PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, INC. v. FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ

    066 Phil 645

  • G.R. No. 46133 November 29, 1938 - PLACIDO ROSAL v. DIONISIO FORONDA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. 46174 November 29, 1938 - PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, INC. v. FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ

    066 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. 46262 November 29, 1938 - CINE LIGAYA v. ALEJO LABRADOR, ET AL.

    066 Phil 659

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 46174   November 29, 1938 - PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, INC. v. FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ<br /><br />066 Phil 654

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 46174. November 29, 1938.]

    PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

    Juan Nabong, for Appellant.

    L. D. Lockwood, for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. JUDGMENT; FINDING OF CONTEMPT FOR VIOLATION OF A PERMANENT INJUNCTION THAT IS ILLEGAL AND VOID. — A decision finding an operator of a land transportation company guilty of contempt, for violating a permanent writ of injunction that is illegal and void, is also illegal and void.


    D E C I S I O N


    VILLA-REAL, J.:


    This is an appeal taken by the defendant Fernando Enriquez from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, the dispositive part of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Wherefore, this court holds that the defendant is guilty for contempt for violating the terms of the permanent injunction, the said violating consisting in having filed an application before the Public Service Commission to pick up and drop passengers in the territory occupied by the Pampanga Bus Co., by virtue of which this court orders the defendant, within ten days from the date he receives copy of this decision, to withdraw the application filed in case No. 48802 of the Public Service Commission, or to ask for the revocation of any authority which may have been granted to him under the said application. Otherwise, it is ordered that the defendant be arrested and imprisoned until he complies with the conditions of this decision. (B. E., pp. 42, 43.)"

    On November 15, 1934, in civil case No. 45149 of the Court of First Instance of Manila between the same parties in this case, a decision was rendered containing the following dispositive part:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Therefore, let judgment be entered:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "(1) Declaring the preliminary injunction issued in this case, permanent, and restraining the defendant Fernando Enriquez from picking up or dropping passengers at point where he is not authorized to pick and drop passengers by this certificate of public convenience;

    "(2) Enjoining the plaintiff from carrying passengers from Masantol and Macabebe to the City of Manila, and from carrying passengers or making local service between Sta. Lucia and Calumpit; and

    "(3) Requiring the parties to this case to comply with the terms of the agreement contained in Exhibit 1 dated November 9, 1929; without awarding to either party any damages and without any finding as to costs. So ordered."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The agreement referred to in the aforesaid decision, which was signed by the attorneys for the Pampanga Bus Company, Inc. and by Fernando Enriquez, respectively, is of the following tenor:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Comes now the undersigned attorney and to this Honorable Commission respectfully states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. That Fernando Enriquez withdraws the three motions presented in the above-entitled cases.

    "2. That Fernando Enriquez withdraws his application to operate in all points served by the Pampanga Bus Company and agrees not to present any application in the territory now occupied by the Pampanga Bus Company.

    "3. That the Pampanga Bus Company agrees to withdraw its opposition to the application of Fernando Enriquez from additional hours from Masantol to Manila with the right to pick up passengers in Macabebe and Apalit.

    "4. That the Pampanga Bus Company agrees to permit Fernando Enriquez to carry passengers between Masantol and Macabebe and Calumpit on his regular trips on Tuesdays only.

    "5. That the Pampanga Bus Company agrees not to establish a direct service between Masantol and Manila or Masantol and Calumpit on Tuesdays.

    "6. That Fernando Enriquez agrees not to acquire any competing line of the Pampanga Bus Company.

    "Manila, November 9, 1929."cralaw virtua1aw library

    For violation by Fernando Enriquez of the conditions of said agreement, the Pampanga Bus Company filed a complaint in civil case No. 45159 of the Court of First Instance of Manila with a prayer for a writ of injunction against Fernando Enriquez, who filed a counter- complaint with a counter-petition for a writ of injunction. both petitions were granted, a writ of preliminary injunction having been issued against each of the land parties.

    On April 6, 1937, Fernando Enriquez filed before the Public Service Commission, in case No. 48802, an application wherein he asked for the lifting of the restrictions imposed in his certificates of public need and convenience issued in cases Nos. 20450 and 22476. The Pampanga Bus Co., Inc. objected to said application alleging that the filing thereof is in violation of the agreement of November 9, 1929, above-quoted, and asked for the dismissal of the said application.

    The commission not having acted on the said petition for dismissal, the Pampanga Bus Company, Inc. filed in civil case No. 51550 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, a complaint with a prayer for injunction relief wherein it was asked:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that the defendant, his attorneys, agents and other representatives, be restrained and enjoined from prosecuting his application to remove restrictions presented to the Public Service Commission in case No. 48802 and that he be required to withdraw and retire and said application;

    "And, further, that during the pendency of this case a preliminary injunction be issued prohibiting the defendant, his attorneys, agents and representatives from prosecuting the said application before the Public Service Commission.

    "Manila, P. I., July 12, 1937."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The Court of First Instance of Manila denied the said petition for a writ of injunction. Whereupon, the Pampanga Bus Company, Inc., filed in the same court, in civil case No. 45159, a complaint against Enriquez wherein it was asked:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that after proper hearing, the defendant be adjudged guilty of contempt of court, and be committed to prison until he withdraws the application, or asks for the cancellation and revocation of any authority that might be granted him in case No. 48802 of the Public Service Commission.

    "Manila, P. I., August 12, 1937."cralaw virtua1aw library

    After the hearing on the complaint and the presentations of the evidence, the Court of First Instance of Manila, on November 27, 1937, rendered a decision the dispositive part of which is above-quoted.

    The principal question to decide in the present appeal is whether or not the trial court erred in finding the defendant-appellant Fernando Enriquez guilty of contempt for having violated the permanent writ of injunction which had been issued against him whereby he was ordered to comply with the conditions of the agreement Exhibit 1 of November 9, 1929, in the sense that he would not proceed with the application to lift the restrictions imposed on his certificates.

    In the decision rendered in the case of Pampanga Bus Company v. Enriquez (G. R. No. 46040), promulgated at the same time as this one, we have said that "An agreement, entered into by the operator of a public land transportation service with a rival in the same business, whereby the former binds himself not to apply for the lifting of the restrictions imposed on his certificates of public need and convenience, is illegal and void, because it constitutes a waiver against public interest of a right granted by law, and does not bind the Public Service Commission."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In view of the nullity, because of illegality, of the agreement whose terms the Court of First Instance of Manila would compel Fernando Enriquez to respect, and which the latter did not respect, finding him guilty of contempt for disobeying the injunction prohibiting him from proceeding with his application to lift the aforesaid restrictions upon his aforesaid certificates, both the said writ of injunction as well as the judgment finding the herein defendant-appellant Fernando Enriquez guilty of contempt for having violated the said writ, are erroneous and void because they have for their purpose of enforcement of an illegal and, therefore, void agreement.

    In view of the foregoing considerations, we are of the opinion and so hold that a decision finding an operator of a land transportation company guilty contempt, for violating a permanent writ of injunction that is illegal and void, is also illegal and void.

    Wherefore, the appealed decision is reversed, with the costs to the plaintiff and appellee Pampanga Bus Company, Inc. So ordered.

    Avanceña, C.J., Imperial, Diaz, Laurel and Concepcion, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 46174   November 29, 1938 - PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, INC. v. FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ<br /><br />066 Phil 654


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED