Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > September 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-21988 September 30, 1968

ALICIA S. GONZALES, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, DISTRICT ENGINEER:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-21988. September 30, 1968.]

ALICIA S. GONZALES, represented by her Attorney-in-fact HUMBERTO DE LOS SANTOS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, DISTRICT ENGINEER, Province of Davao and LUCIA O. TOLENTINO, Respondents-Appellees.

Aportadera & Palabrica for petitioner and Appellant.

Solicitor General for respondent and appellee Secretary of Public Works and Communications.

Tolentino, Amaqus & Maderazo for other respondents and appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. COURTS; JURISDICTION; POWER OF COURTS TO RESTRAIN ACTS ABOUT TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN TERRITORIAL BOUNDARIES; CASE AT BAR. — Although the Secretary of Public Works and Communications is in Manila, the Court of First Instance of Davao had jurisdiction to entertain Civil Case No. 3689, which is an action for certiorari, prohibition with preliminary injunction and/or preliminary mandatory injunction, considering that its main purpose was to prevent the enforcement of a decision of the said department head to demolish certain dams located in Davao. The cases of Acosta v. Alvendia (G. R. No. L-14598, October 31, 1960), Samar Mining Co. v. Arnaldo (G. R. No. L-17709 June 30, 1961), and Alhambra Cigar & Cigarettes Co. v. The National Administrator of Regional Office No. 2 (G. R. No. L-20491, August 31, 1965), uphold the jurisdiction of the above-mentioned court to hear the present case and decide whether or not the relief prayed for should be granted.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, C.J.:


Appeal by petitioner Alicia S. Gonzales from an order of the Court of First Instance of Davao dismissing Civil Case No. 3689 thereof.

The records show that, acting upon a letter-complaint filed by Lucia O. Tolentino, and after hearing Alicia S. Gonzales, among others, the Undersecretary of Public Works and Communications rendered, on July 11, 1961, a decision ordering the demolition of certain dams constructed by Gonzales and three other persons across Cabatan River and seemingly enclosing Gonzales fishponds in Magbongcogon, Lupon, Davao. On subsequent motion of Gonzales, this decision was reconsidered by the Head of said Department on September 7. However, on appeal taken by Tolentino, the last action thus taken by said Department Head was, on December 1, 1961, reversed by the Office of the President, which ordered the dams aforementioned demolished. Accordingly, said Department directed the District Engineer of Davao to proceed with the demolition of the dams. A reconsideration of the decision of the Executive having been, subsequently, denied, on January 16, 1962, the District Engineer of Davao advised Gonzales that the former’s representatives would execute said decision.

Hence, on January 17, 1962, Gonzales commenced against the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, the District Engineer of Davao and Lucia O. Tolentino, said Civil Case No. 3689, which is an action for certiorari, prohibition with preliminary injunction and/or preliminary mandatory injunction, to prevent the demolition of petitioner’s dams in compliance with the departmental order aforementioned. Acting upon a motion to dismiss filed by respondent Tolentino and upon the authority of Samar Mining Co. v. Arnaldo, G. R. No. L-17709 (June 30, 1961) and Acosta v. Alvendia, 109 Phil, 1017, the lower court dismissed the case. A reconsideration of the order to this effect having been denied, Gonzales interposed the present appeal.

The only question raised therein is whether the Court of First Instance of Davao had jurisdiction to entertain said Case No. 3689, considering that its main purpose was to prevent the enforcement of a decision of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, who is in Manila. The cases relied upon in the order appealed from do not justify the conclusion reached therein.

The Acosta case referred to a writ of preliminary injunction issued by the Court of First Instance of Manila restraining the Sheriff of Nueva Ecija from enforcing or executing the decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations in a tenancy case involving lands situated in Nueva Ecija. The Supreme Court held that the said Court of First Instance had overstepped its authority in issuing said writ.

The Samar Mining case involved a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction, filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila, to restrain the Regional Administrator and the Labor Attorney of the Department of Labor in its Regional Office No. VI, established in the City of Cebu, from further proceedings in a given Workmen’s Compensation case in that City. Applying Section 44(h) of the Judiciary Act of 1948 (R. A. No. 296) and Rule 67, Sec. 4, of the Rules of Court, we held that said Court had no authority to issue the writ prayed for.

This view was reiterated in Alhambra Cigar and Cigarette Co. v. The National Administrator of Regional Office No. 2, G.R. No. L-20491 (August 31, 1965), which was a case of certiorari and prohibition, with preliminary injunction, filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila to restrain and prohibit the hearing officer and the Administrator of Labor Regional Office No. 2 established in Tuguegarao, Cagayan, from hearing, deciding and otherwise taking further action on a given claim for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

These cases have the following things in common, namely: 1) they were filed in Manila; 2) they sought to restrain the performance of certain acts outside Manila; and 3) it was held that the court of first instance of Manila had no jurisdiction to grant the relief prayed for, because "the authority of courts of first instance to control or restrain acts by means of the writ of injunction is limited to acts which are being committed or about to be committed within the territorial boundaries of their respective provinces or districts."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the case at bar, the acts sought to be restrained were about to be performed within the territorial boundaries of the province of Davao, in which the lower court is sitting. Hence, the above cases uphold the jurisdiction of the said court to hear this case and decide whether or not the relief prayed for by petitioner-appellant may or should be granted.

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is reversed and the record remanded to the lower court for further proceedings, with the costs of this instance against respondent-appellee, Lucia O. Tolentino. It is so ordered.

Reyes J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.

Barrera, J., is on leave.




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






September-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20745 September 2, 1966 DOLORES GRANADA, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20867 September 3, 1966 SALVADOR APRUEBA, ET AL. v. RODOLFO GANZON

  • G.R. No. L-23681 September 3, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HONORATO GENILLA

  • G.R. No. L-20851 September 3, 1966 JESUS AGUIRRE v. VICTOR S. PHENG

  • G.R. No. L-17009 September 13, 1966 BRITISH-AMERICAN ENGINEERING CORPORATION v. ALTO SURETY AND INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19961 September 14, 1966 PILAR REYES v. JOSE M. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-19798 September 20, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALOD MANOBO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20645 September 22, 1966 GO TIAN CHAI v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-22797 September 22, 1966 MAXIMA SANTOS VDA. DE BLAS, ET AL. v. FLORA BLAS DE BUENAVENTURA

  • G.R. No. L-19259 September 23, 1966 GENERAL TRAVEL SERVICE, LTD. v. EDILBERTO Y. DAVID

  • G.R. No. L-20946 September 23, 1966 EUGENIO C. DEL PRADO v. AUREA S. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-21212 September 23, 1966 CITIZENS LEAGUE OF FREEWORKERS, ET AL. v. MACAPANTON ABBAS

  • G.R. No. L-21413 September 23, 1966 FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-21697 September 23, 1966 FRED ENRIQUEZ v. DOMINGO M. CABANGON

  • G.R. No. L-22170 September 23, 1966 IN RE: BERTHA ANN RIVERA, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22531 September 23, 1966 REMEGIA RIEGO, ET AL. v. PABLO RIEGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-24702 and L-26357 September 23, 1966 FABIAN GARCIA, ET AL. v. ELOY B. BELLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24873 September 23, 1966 BASILISA ROQUE, ET AL. v. ARACELI W. VDA. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20988 September 27, 1966 JACINTO DECENA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21871 September 27, 1966 PHILIPPINE REFINING CO., INC. v. RODOLFO GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26387 September 27, 1966 DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ADRIANO V. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21875 September 27, 1966 MARY BURKE DESBARATS, ET AL. v. JOSEFINA SEGARRA VDA. DE LAUREANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24736 September 27, 1966 FRANCISCO MALVAR, ET AL. v. PABLO PALLINGAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20438 September 27, 1966 NEW MANILA LUMBER CO., INC. v. FERMIN CENTINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21224 September 27, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CARMEN PLANAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21170 September 27, 1966 LEONARDO CABUDOL, ET AL. v. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22031 September 28, 1966 CHAN SHU LOU v. MARTINIANO P. VIVO

  • G.R. No. L-21412 September 28, 1966 FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-21438 September 28, 1966 AIR FRANCE v. RAFAEL CARRASCOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21571 September 29, 1966 MERCY’S INCORPORATED v. HERMINIA VERDE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21282 September 29, 1946

    CONSOLACION INSURANCE AND SURETY COMPANY, INC. v. ANGEL H. MOJICA

  • G.R. No. L-19082 September 29, 1966 IN RE: CASIANO KING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19808 September 29, 966

    ELDO J. CARIÑO, ET AL. v. AGRICULTURAL CREDIT AND COOPERATIVE FINANCING ADMINISTRATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20609 September 29, 1966 JUAN DE BORJA, ET AL. v. EULOGIO MENCIAS

  • G.R. No. L-21419 September 29, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NARCISO DE GRACIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21609 September 29, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. KER & COMPANY, LTD.

  • G.R. No. L-21967 September 29, 1966 EDUARDO G. BAUTISTA v. MACARIO PERALTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20149 September 29, 1966 IN RE: MANUEL SPIRIG LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23140 September 29, 1966 MARTA MENDOZA, ET AL. v. FELISA DIAZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18760 September 29, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHlL. v. KAMAD AKIRAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19650 September 29, 1966 CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. ENRICO PALOMAR

  • G.R. No. L-20483 September 30, 1966 IN RE: YONG SAI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20657 September 30, 1966 PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. BERNARDO P. LANDETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21193 September 30, 1966 IN RE: ANACLETO LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21475 September 30, 1966 AMANCIO BALITE v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21766 September 30, 1966 FELICISIMA BALLECER, ET AL. v. JOSE BERNARDO

  • G.R. No. L-21988 September 30, 1968

    ALICIA S. GONZALES, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, DISTRICT ENGINEER