Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1906 > August 1906 Decisions > G.R. No. 2173 August 30, 1906 - MANILA NAVIGATION CO. v. JOSE M. QUINTERO

006 Phil 405:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 2173. August 30, 1906. ]

MANILA NAVIGATION COMPANY, Sociedad Anonima, Petitioner, v. JOSE M. QUINTERO, ET AL., Respondents.

Thos. D. Aitken, for Petitioner.

Bishop & O’Brien, and Modesto Reyes, for Respondents.

J. M. Quintero, in his own behalf.

SYLLABUS


1. WRIT OF PROHIBITION. — Prohibition issued, where it is not quite clear whether the prayer of the complaint in the criminal proceedings is for the issuance of a permanent injunction or for a writ of prohibition, the defendant having admitted the truth of the facts set out in the allegations and consented to judgment in favor of the plaintiff upon the complaint.


D E C I S I O N


CARSON, J. :


This is an original action in this court, praying that the defendants be prohibited and restrained from proceeding further in an attempt to enforce the execution of a certain judgment rendered by the defendant, Jose M. Quintero, justice of the peace of the city of Manila, against the plaintiff and in favor of Leong Yong, one of the defendants in this case.

The defendants, Jose M. Quintero, justice of the peace of the city of Manila, and J. J. Peterson, sheriff of the city of Manila, appear in person, and disclaiming all interest in the action, submit themselves to the judgment of the court, and the defendant, Leong Yong, the real party in interest, appears by counsel and admits the truth of the facts set out in the complaint and formally consents to the rendering of a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

It is not quite clear from the language used whether the prayer of the complaint as set out in Spanish is for the issuance of a permanent injunction or for writ of prohibition, but since the language used, if liberally construed, may be taken to mean a prayer of prohibition, and the only defendant in interest admits the truth of the allegations of the complaint and consents to the rendering of judgment in behalf of the plaintiff, and since prohibition is the proper remedy in the premises and this court has no original jurisdiction in injunction proceedings save in so far as it may grant writs of preliminary injunction in certain cases, we think that prohibition should issue in accordance with the prayer of the complaint with cost in favor of the plaintiff and against Leong Yong, the real defendant in interest.

After ten days let judgment be entered in accordance herewith. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Willard, and Tracey, 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






August-1906 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-2664 August 1, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. CELESTINA CAÑETA

    006 Phil 342

  • G.R. No. L-3007 August 3, 1906 - ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH v. MUNICIPALITY OF BADOC

    006 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 2415 August 7, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JAMES W. WALSH

    006 Phil 349

  • G.R. No. 2688 August 7, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. MARCIANO ORUGA

    006 Phil 351

  • G.R. No. 3018 August 7, 1906 - HIGINIO FRANCISCO YUNTI v. CHINAMAN DY-YCO

    006 Phil 352

  • G.R. No. 3430 August 7, 1906 - ROCHA & CO. v. A. S. CROSSFIELD

    006 Phil 355

  • G.R. No. 2535 August 9, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN ABAD

    006 Phil 360

  • G.R. No. 2723 August 9, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. BERNARDO MANALO

    006 Phil 364

  • G.R. No. L-2926 August 15, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO AGALUDUD

    008 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. 2549 August 15, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. EMETERIO DACANAY

    006 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 2741 August 16, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO LEAÑO

    006 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. 2891 August 16, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. EPIFANIO MAMINTUD

    006 Phil 374

  • G.R. No. 2358 August 22, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANG KAN KO

    006 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 2750 August 22, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO ALDOS

    006 Phil 381

  • G.R. No. 2752 August 22, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FLORENTINO SAYSON

    006 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 2510 August 23, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. LAUREANO FLORES

    006 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 2550 August 23, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. GABINO VENTOSA

    006 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 2658 August 23, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ROSA ALCANTARA

    006 Phil 387

  • G.R. No. 2714 August 23, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. PABLO MALLANAO

    006 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 2732 August 23, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. F. W. WEBSTER

    006 Phil 393

  • G.R. No. 2737 August 23, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. EUSEBIO BROCE

    006 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. 2785 August 23, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE CATAJAY

    006 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. 2768 August 28, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. NAZARIO VALLESTEROS

    006 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 2806 August 28, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. BALBINO MORALES

    006 Phil 403

  • G.R. No. 2173 August 30, 1906 - MANILA NAVIGATION CO. v. JOSE M. QUINTERO

    006 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. 2736 August 30, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN GINER

    006 Phil 406

  • G.R. No. 2767 August 30, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. GORGONIO DE LOS SANTOS

    006 Phil 411

  • G.R. No. 2821 August 30, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. MARIANO ANASTASIO

    006 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. 2844 August 30, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. SAMUEL SAULO

    006 Phil 417

  • G.R. No. 2853 August 30, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. MELECIO FLORES

    006 Phil 420