Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1940 > January 1940 Decisions > G.R. No. 46829 January 15, 1940 - GO HAP, ET AL. v. MAMERTO ROXAS, ET AL.

069 Phil 343:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 46829. January 15, 1940.]

GO HAP, CHENG TUN, CHUA CUA, and CHUA SI, Petitioners, v. MAMERTO ROXAS, Judge of First Instance of Manila, and NG WOO, Respondents.

Felipe S. Abeleda;, for Petitioners.

Pastor L. de Guzman; for respondent Ng Woo.

Duran & Lim for respondent judge.

SYLLABUS


1. DECISION RENDERED UPON STIPULATION OF FACTS; INTERFERENCE WITH EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT; PROHIBITION. — The parties in civil case No. 48795, Court of First Instance of Manila (G. R. No. 45595), having formally entered into a formal stipulation of facts and the decision having been rendered on that stipulation by the Court of Appeals and the decision of the latter court affirmed by the Supreme Court, the party adversely affected by the decision will not, as a rule, be permitted to go back on a general allegation of fraud in entering into that stipulation for the purpose of arresting the execution of the judgment of the Court of Appeals as finally affirmed by this court, after said decision has become final and executory, and a judge of the Court of First Instance who, upon a complaint to set aside, thus rendered and affirmed, issues a preliminary injunction to restrain the normal course of proceedings leading to the execution of a judgment, exceeds his jurisdiction and may be restrained by prohibition.


D E C I S I O N


LAUREL, J.:


On September 14, 1935, the herein petitioners instituted mandamus proceedings (civil case No. 48795) in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the Mayor, the treasurer and superintendent of markets and slaughterhouses of the City of Manila, to compel said officials to declare vacant stalls Nos. 1342-1345 occupied by Ng Woo in the Divisoria Market, and to move the petitioners to said stalls. Ng Woo, respondent here, moved to intervene and his motion was granted. On November 1, 1935, the trial court denied the petition for mandamus. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the judgment of the Court of First Instance was reversed and the respondents ordered "to move the petitioners therein, Go Hap, Cheng Tun, Chua Cua, and Chua Si along the line of stalls Nos. 1342-1345 at the Divisoria Market, vacated by Martina Fernando, with costs." The case was elevated to the Supreme Court on certiorari. The certiorari was denied and the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirmed. Motions for reconsiderations were filed but were not entertained. On July 6, 1939, Ng Woo filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila (civil case No. 55249) to set aside the affirmed judgment of the Court of Appeals on the ground of fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation, and praying that, pending the consideration of the said petition, a writ of preliminary injunction be issued to restrain the respondents from enforcing the judgment. The respondent judge thereupon issued the writ of preliminary injunction restraining principally the City Mayor and the city treasurer of Manila, from executing the judgment affirmed by this court. Hence the present petition for prohibition. On August 8, 1939, this court resolved:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Upon consideration of the petition filed in case G. R. No. 46829, Go Hap, Et. Al. v. Hon. Mamerto Roxas, etc. Et. Al., praying that, after proper proceedings, a writ of prohibition be issued to compel the respondent judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila to desist from interfering with the execution of the judgment in civil case No. 48795 of said court as finally decided by the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. No. 73 and by this court in G. R. No. 45595, and that, pending final determination of these present proceedings, an order be issued directed against the respondent Judge to issue an order revoking the preliminary injunction issued by him in civil case No. 55249 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, it is ordered that, upon the filing of a bond in the amount of P100, a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction be issued directing the respondent judge to revoke the preliminary injunction issued by him in the premises and to refrain from interfering in any manner with the execution of the final decision of this court in G. R. No. 45595, and that the respondents be, as they are hereby, required to answer (not to demur to) said petition within ten days from the receipt of copy thereof."cralaw virtua1aw library

On August 11, 1939, the respondent judge, in compliance with an order of this court, revoked its order granting preliminary injunction, and it is assumed that the execution of the judgment took its regular course.

The fraud or misrepresentation alleged in the complaint which was filed to set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeals and affirmed by this court in G. R. No. 45595, and upon which complaint the preliminary injunction was issued by the Court of First Instance of Manila, is predicated on the averment that the petitioners in civil case No. 48795 of the Court of First Instance of Manila had induced the respondents there "to enter into a false agreed statement of facts," which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . 3. That stalls Nos. 1346 to 1360 held by petitioners are adjacent to and immediately follow stalls Nos. 1342-1345 of the said market;"

The parties in civil case No. 48795, Court of First Instance of Manila (G. R. No. 45595), having formally entered into a formal stipulation of facts and the decision having been rendered on that stipulation by the Court of Appeals and the decision of the latter court affirmed by the Supreme Court, the party adversely affected by the decision will not, as a rule, be permitted to go back on a general allegation of fraud in entering into that stipulation for the purpose of arresting the execution of the judgment of the Court of Appeals as finally affirmed by this court, after said decision has become final and executory, and a Judge of the Court of First Instance who, upon a complaint to set aside, thus rendered and affirmed, issues a preliminary injunction to restrain the normal course of proceedings leading to the execution of a judgment, exceeds his jurisdiction and may be restrained by prohibition.

Accordingly, the writ of prohibition is hereby granted and the respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance ordered to desist from interfering in any manner with the execution of the judgment of the Court of Appeals (CA-G. R. No. 73), in civil case No. 48795 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and affirmed by this court in G. R. No. 45595. As a result, the preliminary mandatory injunction issued by this Court is made permanent, with costs against the respondent Ng Woo. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz and Concepcion, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





January-1940 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 40257 January 11, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. EMILIO LOPEZ DE LEON, ET AL.

    069 Phil 298

  • G.R. No. 46813 January 11, 1940 - FEDERICO OLIVEROS v. PEDRO PORCIONGCOLA, ET AL.

    069 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. 46836 January 11, 1940 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAMBERTO G. YCO

    069 Phil 307

  • G.R. No. 46997 January 11, 1940 - WISE & COMPANY v. MAN SUN LUNG

    069 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. 43723 January 15, 1940 - ENRIQUE C. LOPEZ v. ERNESTO J. SEVA, ET AL.

    069 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 46384 January 15, 1940 - EL COLECTOR DE RENTAS INTERNAS v. JOSE VILLAFLOR

    069 Phil 319

  • G.R. No. 46503 January 15, 1940 - FAUSTO DE LOS SANTOS v. EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS

    069 Phil 321

  • G.R. No. 46517 January 15, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. VITALIANO CADERAO, ET AL.

    069 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. 46603 January 15, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILlPINAS v. MOROS MACARAMPAT, ET AL.

    069 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. 46607 January 16, 1940 - BONIFACIO CARLOS v. CATALINO DE LOS REYES

    069 Phil 335

  • G.R. No. 46827 January 15, 1940 - FELISBERTO GONZALES v. CHARLES H. MILLER

    069 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. 46829 January 15, 1940 - GO HAP, ET AL. v. MAMERTO ROXAS, ET AL.

    069 Phil 343

  • G.R. No. 46896 January 15, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. PABLO M. SAN JUAN

    069 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. 46961 January 15, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ANASTACIA LACENA

    069 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. 46322 January 20, 1940 - ANSELMO RACELIS, ET AL. v. CRISPULO DEALO, ET AL.

    069 Phil 351

  • G.R. No. 46343 January 20, 1940 - JOSE AVILA v. CORAZON CH. VELOSO, ET AL.

    069 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 46588 January 20, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SUBANO ALISUB

    069 Phil 362

  • G.R. No. 46826 January 20, 1940 - LY SIAM v. JOSE DELGADO

    069 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 46835 January 20, 1940 - PASUMIL WORKERS UNION v. TRIBUNAL DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    069 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 46897 January 20, 1940 - GO KIM v. MAMERTO PAGLINAWAN

    069 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. 46898 January 20, 1940 - PEDRO ADAPON v. FELISA MARALIT

    069 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 46922 January 20, 1940 - SALVADOR ARANETA v. GERVASIO DIAZ

    069 Phil 390

  • G.R. No. 46945 January 20, 1940 - CALIXTO ORONCE v. ANSELMA LAPUZ

    069 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. 46947 January 20, 1940 - JEREMIAS MENDOZA v. ALEJO LABRADOR, ET AL.

    069 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. 46984 January 20, 1940 - FRANCISCA MERCADO, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO MACAPAYAG, ET AL.

    069 Phil 403

  • Adm. Case No. 745 January 22, 1940 - IRINEA DE LOS SANTOS v. CELESTINO SAGALONGOS

    069 Phil 406

  • G.R. No. 46141 January 22, 1940 - PARSONS HARDWARE CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    069 Phil 411

  • G.R. Nos. 46255, 46256, 46259 & 46277 January 23, 1940 - PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY v. A. L. YATCO

    069 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 46472 January 23, 1940 - TAN TIONG TECK v. LA COMISION DE VALORES, ET AL.

    069 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. 46529 January 23, 1940 - THE ASIATIC PETROLEUM (P. I.) , LTD. v. CO QUICO

    069 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. 46764 January 23, 1940 - JOSE S. TIAOQUI, ET AL. v. FERNANDO JUGO, ET AL.

    069 Phil 437

  • G.R. No. 46344 January 29, 1940 - JUANA B. VIUDA DE GOLINGCO, ET AL. v. AMBROSIO A. CALLEJA, ET AL.

    069 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 46373 January 29, 1940 - CARLOS PALANCA v. LA MANCOMUNIDAD DE FILIPINAS

    069 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. 46429 January 29, 1940 - ANASTACIO R. JESUITAS v. ISIDRO REYES

    069 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. 46549 January 29, 1940 - LIM BUN UAN v. ARSENIO P. DIZON, ET AL.

    069 Phil 454

  • G.R. No. 46590 January 29, 1940 - TEODORA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. ROMAN A. CRUZ

    069 Phil 457

  • G.R. No. 46621 January 29, 1940 - GUILLERMO MANLAPIT v. V. FRAGANTE

    069 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. 46713 Enero29, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS v. DIONISIO T. FERNANDEZ

    069 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. 46865 January 29, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. LEON R. PAMATI-AN

    069 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. 46928 January 29, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS v. BASILIO J. EVANGELISTA

    069 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 46976 January 29, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MAURICIO G. HONRADEZ

    069 Phil 468

  • G.R. No. 46123 January 30, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SIXTO ESPINO

    069 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 46559 January 30, 1940 - J. A. WOLFSON v. BIBIANO L. MEER

    069 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 46564 January 30, 1940 - EULOGIO TRIA, ET AL. v. ROSARIO VILLAREAL, ET AL.

    069 Phil 478

  • G.R. No. 46853 January 30, 1940 - MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY CO. v. FRANCISCO ZULUETA, ET AL.

    069 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 45551 January 31, 1940 - IN RE: MARCELINO LONTOK v. PRIMITIVO B. AC-AC

    069 Phil 487

  • G.R. No. 46286 January 31, 1940 - GERMAN LIMJAP v. MARIA ESCOLAR VDA. DE LIMJAP, ET AL.

    069 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. 46979 January 31, 1940 - URSULA ESGUERRA v. LEONORA DE LEON, ET AL.

    069 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 47005 January 31, 1940 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAZARO MAÑAGO

    069 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. 47008 January 31, 1940 - EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS v. ARTURO REYES, ET AL.

    069 Phil 497