Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1969 > February 1969 Decisions > G.R. No. L-29864 February 28, 1969 - CHAMBER OF FILIPINO RETAILERS, INC., ET AL. v. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-29864. February 28, 1969.]

CHAMBER OF FILIPINO RETAILERS, INC., NATIONAL MARKET VENDORS ASSOCIATION, INC., AMBROSIO ILAO, CRISPIN DE GUZMAN, JOSE J. LAPID and FELICISIMO LAS, Petitioners, v. HON. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, as City Mayor of Manila, the CITY TREASURER and THE CITY OF MANILA, Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; PLEADINGS; MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; DENIAL THEREOF PROPER IN INSTANT CASE. — We reiterate our resolution dismissing the present action for prohibition and, as a consequence, We deny the motion for reconsideration mentioned heretofore, for the reason that the relief sought by herein petitioners could be properly secured from the lower court in accordance with the provisions of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, or from this Court in the appealed case — G.R. L-29864. The present action was filed as an attempt to secure from this court the same relief that we had already denied to the same parties in G.R. No. L-29819.


R E S O L U T I O N


DIZON, J.:


Before Us is a motion for the reconsideration of our resolution of December 3, 1968 dismissing the present action for prohibition "for lack of merit; appeal in due time is the remedy." chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

It appears that on August 14, 1968 petitioners filed Civil Case No. 73902 against Antonio J. Villegas Et. Al. in the Court of First Instance of Manila to question the validity of Ordinance No. 6696 — later superseded by Ordinance No. 6767 — increasing the rental fees of stalls in public markets in said city. A restraining order was issued by said court but the same was lifted on November 3, 1968 when, after hearing the parties, the court rendered judgment dismissing the case and declaring the questioned ordinance valid. On November 16, 1968 the therein petitioners perfected their appeal to this Court (G.R. No. L- 29819).

Petitioners now allege that upon the lifting of the restraining order mentioned heretofore, the respondents in the case — who are the same respondents in the present — immediately sought to enforce the provisions of Ordinance No. 6767 by making demands for the payment of the back differentials in market rates together with the rentals at the new rates, with the threat that petitioners would be ejected summarily from their respective stalls if they refused or failed to pay the rentals and back charges demanded. After receiving such demand petitioners filed the present action for prohibition to restrain collection of rentals and possible ejectment.

Upon the above facts We reiterate our resolution dismissing the present action for prohibition and, as a consequence, We deny the motion for reconsideration mentioned heretofore, for the reason that the relief sought by herein petitioners could be properly secured from the lower court in accordance with the provisions of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, or from this Court in the appealed case — G.R. L- 29864. As a matter of fact, petitioners’ motion for reconsideration expressly states that on November 21, 1968 they filed in the latter case a motion to reinstate the restraining order herein before mentioned or to issue a writ of preliminary injunction pending appeal, which motion, however, was denied by this Court on the 26th of the same month and year. It would appear, therefore, that the present action was filed as an attempt to secure from this court the same relief that we had already denied to the same parties in G.R. No. L- 29819.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners on December 5, 1968 is hereby denied.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee and Barredo, 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






February-1969 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20351 February 27, 1969 - MAXIMINO VICENTE v. BENITO DE LOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-20700 February 27, 1969 - FIDEL TEODORO v. FELIX MACARAEG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20913 February 27, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOMENO VACAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22228 February 27, 1969 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22333 February 27, 1969 - LUCIANO AZUR, ET AL. v. PROVINCIAL BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22726 February 27, 1969 - CENTRAL COOPERATIVE EXCHANGE, INC. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23076 February 27, 1969 - NICANOR M. BALTAZAR v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-23515 February 27, 1969 - CHOA HAI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25732 February 27, 1969 - VARGAS PLOW FACTORY INC. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-25805 February 27, 1969 - VICTOR NGO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26522 February 27, 1969 - ANTONIO FAVIS, ET AL. v. MUNICIPALITY OF SABANGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26575 February 27, 1969 - PEDRO DIMASACAT, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26868 February 27, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMIGIO ESTEBIA

  • G.R. No. L-29333 February 27, 1969 - MARIANO LL. BADELLES v. CAMILO P. CABILI

  • G.R. No. L-29658 February 27, 1969 - ENRIQUE V. MORALES v. ABELARDO SUBIDO

  • G.R. No. L-22586 February 27, 1969 - JULIANA B. BRILLANTES v. MARIANO R. GUEVARRA

  • G.R. No. L-25532 February 28, 1969 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. WILLIAM J. SUTER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27451 February 28, 1969 - PAZ ONGSIACO, ET AL. v. ROMAN D. DALLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29864 February 28, 1969 - CHAMBER OF FILIPINO RETAILERS, INC., ET AL. v. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 481 February 28, 1969 - IN RE: VIRGINIA C. ALMIREZ v. ARTURO P. LOPEZ

  • G.R. No. L-21286 February 28, 1969 - FILEMON CRUZ v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-23470 February 28, 1969 - IN RE: SY SUAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25874 February 28, 1969 - MANUEL C. CASTAÑEDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27345 February 28, 1969 - LEONARDO CATAIN v. HERMINIO RIOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29058 February 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS LACANDAZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21267 February 28, 1969 - FILOMENO ANCIANO v. MOISES G. OTADOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29865 February 28, 1969 - WENCESLAO DESCUATAN v. SANCHO M. BALAYON

  • G.R. No. L-21062 February 28, 1969 - FLORENCIO CABONITALLA, ET AL. v. AMADO SANTIAGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-26894-96 February 28, 1969 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS & SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. NWSA CONSOLIDATED UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28652 February 28, 1969 - ALFREDO B. BARAÑGAN v. VICENTE HERNANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29553 February 28, 1969 - ALEJANDRO REYES v. ANATALIO REYES

  • G.R. Nos. L-17504 and L-17506 February 28, 1969 - RAMON DE LA RAMA, ET AL. v. MA-AO SUGAR CENTRAL CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20895 February 28, 1969 - IN RE: RAMON HONG CHIONG YU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21676 February 28, 1969 - VICENTE ALDABA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22506 February 28, 1969 - ENCARNACION M. SIAYNGCO, ET AL. v. MARTIN COSTIBOLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23248 February 28, 1969 - MANUEL UY v. ENRICO PALOMAR

  • G.R. No. L-23289 February 28, 1969 - JOVENCIO LUANSING v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24170 February 28, 1969 - ILLUH ASAALI, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-24615 February 28, 1969 - LEONARDO AVILA v. PEDRO M. GIMENEZ

  • G.R. No. L-25913 February 28, 1969 - RAYMUNDO CASTRO v. APOLONIO BUSTOS

  • G.R. No. L-26100 February 28, 1969 - CITY OF BAGUIO, ET AL. v. PIO R. MARCOS, ET AL.