Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1947 > November 1947 Decisions > G.R. No. L-1461 November 29, 1947 - GAW SIN GEE v. EMILIO PEÑA

079 Phil 663:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-1461. November 29, 1947.]

GAW SIN GEE, Petitioner, v. EMILIO PEÑA, Judge of First Instance of Manila, ET AL., Respondents.

Quisumbing, Sycip & Quisumbing for Petitioner.

Assistant City Fiscal of Manila Arsenio Nanawa and Pedro C. Mendiola for Respondents.

SYLLABUS


1. INJUNCTION; JUDGMENT IN, NOT STAYED UNLESS ORDERED. — Under section 4 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, unless otherwise ordered by the trial court, a judgment dissolving or denying an injunction shall not be stayed after its rendition and before an appeal is taken or during the pendency of an appeal, although said court, in its discretion, may restore such injunction during the pendency of the appeal upon such terms as to bond or otherwise as it may consider proper for the security of the rights of the adverse party.

2. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; RELIEF GRANTED ACCORDING TO PRAYER OF INTERVENOR, THOUGH NOT ASKED BY OTHER PARTIES. — although not asked by plaintiff or defendant, when a specific relief is sought by the intervenor, the same may be granted by the court.

3. CERTIORARI; QUESTION RELATING TO MERITS OF MAIN CASE TO BE REVISED AND DECIDED IN APPEAL; CASE AT BAR. — The objection that the occupant of a market stall may not, summarily and administratively, be deprived of his awful privilege without due process of law and all its applicable connotations, should be taken up in the appeal of the main case, and not in a certiorari proceeding.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.:


Except for some legal issues which the industry of petitioner’s counsel uncovered, this case presents the same material features as other recenty disposed of. The dispute concerns the occupation of market stalls of the Divisoria Market, City of Manila.

Alleging that, without valid cause, the master of the Divisoria Market had required him to vacate stalls Nos. 1420-1423, which he had leased from the city, herein petitioner Gaw Sin Gee filed in the court First Instance of Manila a petition for injunction. The respondent officer answered that he was acting upon orders of the Mayor, who had found, upon investigation, that Gaw Sin Gee had violated the terms of the lease, and therefore had forfeited his right to continue occupying the said market places.

Fortunata M. Torres, the other respondent herein, joined the defendant market master, supporting his allegations of violation of the conditions of the lease and cancellation thereof. And averring that the said stalls had been duly awarded to her, and that under Republic Act No. 37 she had preference as a Filipino citizen, she asked for judgment sustaining her right as occupant and lessee of said marker places.

The court, Judge Emilio Peña presiding, tried the issues, and in due course, promulgated a decision, the dispositive part of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Having arrived at the conclusion that the revocation of the lease was justified by the circumstances and no evidence having been presented to prove that the adjudication of stalls Nos. 1420-1423 to the defendant, Fortunata M. Torres, was irregular, it must be presumed that the provisions of the Market Code were followed in said adjudication.

"Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the defendant, Fortunata M. Torres, and against the plaintiff, declaring the former the lawful occupant of stalls Nos. 1420-1423 of the Divisoria Market, Manila, and ordering the latter to vacate said stalls, with the costs of the proceedings taxed against him. The order of preliminary injunction is hereby lifted."cralaw virtua1aw library

Thereafter the aforesaid respondents filed an "urgent motion for immediate execution" alleging the rendition of the judgment and the inability of the city authorities to eject Gaw Sin Gee and his agents unless authorized to do so. Over plaintiff’s opposition, and notwithstanding his appeal, the court directed the issuance of execution.

Hence this petition for certiorari and allied remedies, principally to annul the order of execution. It is based on alleged excess of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion.

We have recently denied petitions to impede similar "execution" of judgment on the right to hold market stalls. We made these remarks:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The decision in civil case No. 971 set aside the writ of preliminary injunction issued at its commencement. Under section 4 of Rule 39 of the Rules of court, unless otherwise ordered by the trial court, a judgment dissolving or denying an injunction shall not be stayed after its rendition and before an appeal is taken or during the pendency of an appeal, although said court, in its discretion may restore such injunction during the pendency of the appeal upon such terms as to bond or otherwise as it may constitute proper for the security of the rights of the adverse party. In the instant case, the respondent judge not only did not restore the writ of preliminary injunction dissolved in his decision, but expressly ordered its execution and refused to allow the herein petitioner to file a supersedes bond. In the absence of such injunction, the defendant city officials in civil case No. 971 could have proceeded, with the ouster of the petitioner from the stalls in question. Indeed, there is really nothing to be executed under the decision which merely determined who has a better title to said stalls; and the order of the respondent judge now complained of, can only be interpreted to mean as an authorization for the city authorities to carry out, with the aid of the sheriff, the said ouster." (Buenaventura v. Peña, 78 Phil., 795.)

Mutatis mutandis, the above is conclusive against petitioner herein.

It may be noted, in connection with his point that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to order the ejectment because none of the parties had asked for such remedy, that respondent Fortunata M. Torres as intervenor, had in effect solicited analogous relief. As to the other objection, vigorously pressed here, that the occupant of a market stall may not, summarily and administratively, be deprived of his lawful privilege without the due process of law and all its applicable connotations, it is enough to state that this aspect of the litigation should be taken up when the appeal is considered on the merits.

The petition is denied, with costs. So ordered.

Moran, C.J., Feria and Pablo, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





November-1947 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1365 November 14, 1947 - VITALIANO JURADO v. MARCELO S. FLORES

    079 Phil 651

  • G.R. No. L-630 November 15, 1947 - ALEXANDER A. KRIVENKO v. REGISTER OF DEEDS

    079 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. L-562 November 19, 1947 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE PARDO

    079 Phil 568

  • G.R. No. L-1455 November 21, 1947 - ANG CHING GI v. DIONISIO DE LEON

    079 Phil 580

  • G.R. No. L-1572 November 21, 1947 - HANS GALEWSKY v. RAMON DE LA RAMA

    079 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. L-943 November 22, 1947 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO CAPACETE

    079 Phil 586

  • G.R. No. L-1497 November 25, 1947 - JOAQUIN R. BOGAYONG v. CONRADO SANCHEZ

    079 Phil 591

  • G.R. No. L-1480 November 26, 1947 - CATALINA CURA ET AL. v. SOTERO RODAS

    079 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-1483 November 26, 1947 - YU TIONG TAY y ENCARNACION RESCINU contra CONRADO BARRIOS

    079 Phil 597

  • G.R. No. L-1518 November 27, 1947 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS contra FORTUNATO BORROMEO Y OTROS

    079 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. L-673 November 28, 1947 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUEDO SARDOMA

    079 Phil 607

  • G.R. No. L-1029 November 28, 1947 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO RAMOS Y LINAO

    079 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. L-1079 November 28, 1947 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO BARCENA ET AL.

    079 Phil 629

  • G.R. No. L-1154 November 28, 1947 - GREGORIO SAN JOSE v. JOSE R. DE VENECIA

    079 Phil 636

  • G.R. No. L-1307 November 28, 1947 - ARSENIO V. CALUYA ET AL. v. SIMEON RAMOS

    079 Phil 640

  • G.R. Nos. L-1458 & L-1469 November 28, 1947 - ADELA VELASQUEZ v. BONIFACIO YSIP

    079 Phil 645

  • G.R. No. L-1532 November 28, 1947 - SANTIAGO AQUINO v. MANUEL BLANCO

    079 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. L-1558 November 28, 1947 - MAGDALENA ASE v. SOTERO RODAS

    079 Phil 651

  • G.R. No. L-440 November 29, 1947 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN BAUTISTA

    079 Phil 652

  • G.R. No. L-1063 November 29, 1947 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTOS LOPEZ Y JACINTO

    079 Phil 658

  • G.R. No. L-1461 November 29, 1947 - GAW SIN GEE v. EMILIO PEÑA

    079 Phil 663