Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1965 > April 1965 Decisions > G.R. No. L-16886 April 30, 1965 - ANACLETO TRINIDAD, ET AL. v. JOSE L. MOYA, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-16886. April 30, 1965.]

ANACLETO TRINIDAD and DIONISIO BARROGA, Petitioners, v. HON. JOSE L. MOYA and MUNICIPALITY OF IRIGA, Respondents.

Luis N. de Leon, for Petitioners.

Provincial Fiscal Alfredo C. Reyes for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. INJUNCTION; WHEN WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MAY BE ISSUED EX- PARTE. — While the general rule is that a writ of preliminary injunction should be issued in proper cases only after notice served upon the party sought to be enjoined, the Rules of Court give the court discretion to issue the writ ex-parte upon a showing that the petition will offer irreparable injury should the writ not be issued immediately.

2. COURTS, DISCRETION OF TRIAL COURTS NOT INTERFERED WITH UNLESS SERIOUSLY ABUSED. — On matters where trial courts are given discretion to grant or deny relief to a party in an action pending before them, the policy of the Supreme Court is not to interfere with the exercise of such discretion unless it is clearly shown that it was grossly abused.


D E C I S I O N


DIZON, J.:


Petition for certiorari filed by Anacleto Trinidad and Dionisio Barroga against the Municipality of Iriga, Camarines Sur, and the Hon. Jose L. Moya, Presiding Judge of the third branch of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, to annul the latter’s order of March 22, 1960, in Civil Case No. 4836, "commanding the defendants Anacleto Trinidad, Dionisio Barroga, and their agents to refrain and desist from collecting the rents, fees, and other benefits from the Iriga Central Market and Sagrada Market in Iriga, respectively, during the pendency of this action."

On December 11, 1959, pursuant to a resolution approved by the Municipal Council of Iriga, Camarines Sur, authorizing the leasing of the Central Public Market and the Sagrada Public Market of said municipality to private persons, the Municipal Mayor, Perfecto I. Tanduran, representing said municipality leased the Central Public Market to petitioner Trinidad and the Sagrada Public Market to petitioner Barroga, for P24,000.00 and P360.00 yearly, respectively, both payable quarterly in advance within the first ten days of every quarter, for a period of one year beginning January 1, 1960, extendible to another four years, subject to the approval of the Provincial Board. The Municipal Council approved said lease agreements on December 29, 1959 in its Resolution No. 70, s. of 1959, and on January 1, 1960 the lessees, after paying the rentals corresponding to the first quarter, took over the operation and administration of the said markets, collecting rents, market fees and other benefits therein.

On February 16, 1960 respondent Municipality of Iriga commenced an action in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur against petitioners and its former mayor, Perfecto Tanduran, (Civil Case No. 4836) to annul the aforementioned lease contracts, with a prayer for the issuance ex-parte of a writ of preliminary injunction restraining, petitioners from collecting rents, market fees and other benefits in the leased premises during the pendency of the action, and damages. The complaint alleged that, prior to the leasing of the markets to petitioners, respondent Municipality had been earning an average net income of no less than P35,000.00 annually from the operation thereof; that on or about the 26th day of December, 1959, defendant Perfecto Tanduran, who was then the municipal mayor of Iriga, Camarines Sur, and who at the time knew that he lost his bid for reelection in the 1959 elections, in collusion and connivance with Anacleto Trinidad and Dionisio Barroga, with intent to defraud the municipality in the approximate sum of P11,000.00, Philippine Currency, for their own personal gain and benefit, maliciously, irregularly and in deliberate disregard of the law governing the lease of public markets to private persons, leased in behalf of the plaintiff the said Iriga Central Market to defendant Anacleto Trinidad for a period of one year beginning January 1, 1960 in the patently unreasonable amount of P24,000 00, and the said Sagrada Market to defendant Dionisio Barroga for a similar period of one year beginning January 1, 1960 in the patently unreasonable amount of P360.00; that respondent municipality, thru its then mayor and municipal council, had demanded petitioners to turn over to them the operation and administration of the premises, which the latter refused; and that to allow petitioners to continue collecting rents and market fees during the pendency of the action would cause great and irreparable injury to respondent municipality.

Petitioners’ motion to require respondent municipality to specify in its complaint the facts and circumstances constituting the fraud, connivance and collusion alleged therein having been denied, they filed their answer on March 11, 1960 alleging that the lease contracts were entered into and executed with all the requirements of the law; that the municipal council authorized the lease and approved said contracts because it believed that they were to the advantage of the municipality; and that the present suit was instigated for political reasons by the incumbent mayor, vice-mayor and councilors of said municipality who, conspiring together, immediately upon assuming office passed a resolution annulling the contracts of lease in question without any authority to do so; that by virtue thereof, petitioners have suffered damages which they seek to recover from the above-mentioned municipal officials by means of a third-party complaint filed against them.

Subsequently, on March 22, 1960, the Court issued an order granting ex-parte the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for in the complaint for the following reasons:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It appearing from the facts set forth in the complaint, verified by the oath of the Provincial Fiscal as attorney for the plaintiff, that it (Municipality of Iriga) is entitled to the relief it seeks, that the continued collection of the rents and fees from the two markets in question by the defendants Anacleto Trinidad and Dionisio Barroga will likely cause irreparable injury to the plaintiff as the amount of these rentals and fees depends on the patronage of the public and it will be difficult to determine it with certainty if they are collected by private individuals, while this is not so where the collection is done by public officials who are under obligation to issue receipts for moneys coming into their possession; that although the complaint prays for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, the defendants did not deny in their answer the facts averred in support thereof; and that under the circumstances, a writ of preliminary injunction may be granted ‘ex-parte’ (Moran, Rules of Court, Vol. I, 500-501), . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Their motion to set aside the order of preliminary injunction having been denied, petitioners filed the present action.

It is petitioners’ contention now that the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing, ex-parte the writ of preliminary injunction mentioned above and in denying their motion to set it aside. We find no merit in this claim.

The general rule — it is true — is that a writ of preliminary injunction should be issued in proper cases only after notice served upon the party sought to be enjoined, but the Rules of Court give the court discretion to issue the writ ex-parte upon a showing that the party seeking the injunction will suffer irreparable injury should the writ not be issued immediately.

In the present case, considering the allegations made in the complaint filed in Civil Case No. 4836 of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur for the annulment of the lease contracts mentioned heretofore, we do not believe that the respondent judge committed any abuse of discretion at all in issuing ex-parte the writ complained of, considering that, had not said writ been issued, the defendants in said action would have continued administering and operating the public markets subject of the contracts of lease and would have continued collecting rents and fees in connection therewith, without any assurance that the Municipality of Iriga would be able to recover the amounts thus collected should the lease contracts be finally annulled. At any rate, on matters where trial courts are given the right to use their discretion in granting or denying relief to a party in an action pending before them, our policy is not to interfere with the exercise of said discretion unless it is clearly shown that it was abused in a serious manner — a circumstance not obtaining in the present case.

WHEREFORE, the writ prayed for is denied, with costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, 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






April-1965 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-19392 April 14, 1965 - ALEXANDER HOWDEN & CO., LTD., ET AL. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-15947 April 30, 1965 - JOSE F. APARRI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16886 April 30, 1965 - ANACLETO TRINIDAD, ET AL. v. JOSE L. MOYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17708 April 30, 1965 - PACIFIC OXYGEN & ACETYLENE CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-17744 April 30, 1965 - RATTAN ART & DECORATIONS, INC. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17962 April 30, 1965 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. BLAS GONZALES

  • G.R. No. L-18211 April 30, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAYMUNDO MARANAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19071 April 30, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO REYNO

  • G.R. No. L-19330 April 30, 1965 - GENERAL INSURANCE AND SURETY CORP. v. LEANDRO E. CASTELO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19331 April 30, 1965 - VICTORIA G. CAPUNO, ET AL. v. PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING CO. OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19580 April 30, 1965 - IN RE: FELIX TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19649 April 30, 1965 - IN RE: LUIS YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19926 April 30, 1965 - KOPPEL (PHIL.), INC. v. AURELIO JAVELLANA, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19970 April 30, 1965 - FEDERICO CATAPANG v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19973 April 30, 1965 - LORENZO E. MACANSANTOS, ET AL. v. TEOFILA GUINOO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19996 April 30, 1965 - WENCESLA CACHO v. JOHN G. UDAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20148 April 30, 1965 - IN RE: PABLO LEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20300-01 April 30, 1965 - ANTONINO DIZON, ET AL. v. JUAN DE G. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20310 April 30, 1965 - IN RE: SAW CEN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20452 April 30, 1965 - JOSE A. ARCHES v. AURORA BILLANES

  • G.R. No. L-20501 April 30, 1965 - BRITISH TRADERS’ INS. CO., LTD. v. COM. INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-20547 April 30, 1965 - CIPRIANO TUVERA, ET AL. v. PASTOR DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20553 April 30, 1965 - CHIOK HO v. COMPAÑIA MARITIMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20636 April 30, 1965 - HERNANDO LAYNO, ET AL. v. RAFAEL DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20653 April 30, 1965 - DOMINGO BAUTISTA v. JOSE MA. BARREDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20730 April 30, 1965 - PERFECTO BONILLA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21066 April 30, 1965 - MARIA A. GAYACAO v. EXEC. SEC. OF THE PRES. OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21160 April 30, 1965 - FELISA TAYAO, ET AL. v. PASCUALA DULAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21263 April 30, 1965 - LAWYERS COOP. PUB. CO. v. PERFECTO A. TABORA

  • G.R. No. L-21280 April 30, 1965 - PROCOPIO R. MORALES, JR. v. TORIANO PATRIARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21355 April 30, 1965 - BENJAMIN GARCIA, ET AL. v. ELOY B. BELLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21589 April 30, 1965 - HON. MARTINIANO VIVO v. HON. FRANCISCO ARCA

  • G.R. No. L-22074 April 30, 1965 - PHIL. GUARANTY CO., INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22176 April 30, 1965 - RODOLFO CARREON, ET AL. v. GERMANICO CARREON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24455 April 30, 1965 - JUANA GOLINGCO, ET AL. v. CONCEPCION PEÑA