Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-46829 January 15, 1940
GO HAP, CHENG TUN, CHUA CUA, and CHUA SI, petitioners,
vs.
MAMERTO ROXAS, Judge of First Instance of Manila, NG WOO, respondents.
Felipe S. Abeleda for petitioners.
Pastor L. de Guzman for respondent Ng Woo.
Duran, and Lim for respondent judge.
LAUREL, J.:
On September 14, 1935, the herein petitioners instituted proceedings (cavil case No. 8795) in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the Mayor, the treasurer and superintendent of markets and slaughterhouses of the City of Manila, to compel said officials to declare vacant stalls Nos. 1342-1345 occupied by Ng Woo in the Divisoria Market, and to move the petitioners to said stalls Ng Woo, respondent here, moved to intervene and his motion was granted. On November 1, 1935, the trial court denied the petition for mandamus. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the judgment of the Court of First Instance was reversed and the respondents ordered "to move the petitioners therein. Go Hap, Cheng Tun, Chua Cua, and Chua Si along the line stalls Nos. 1342-1345 at the Divisoria market, vacated by Martina Fernando, with costs." The case was elevated to the Supreme Court on certiorari. The certiorari was denied and the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirmed. Motions for reconsideration were filed but were not entertained. On July 6, 1939, Ng Woo filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila (civil case No. 55249) to set aside the affirmed judgment of the Court of Appeals on the ground of fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation, and praying that, pending the consideration of said petition, a writ of preliminary injunction be issued to restrain the respondents from enforcing the judgment. The respondent judge thereupon issued the writ of preliminary injunction restraining principally the City Mayor and the city treasurer of Manila, from executing the judgment affirmed by this court. Hence the present petition for prohibition. On August 8, 1939, this court resolved:
Upon consideration of the petition filed in case G.R. No. 46829, Go Hap, et al. vs. Hon. Mamaerto Roxas, etsc. et al., praying that, after proper proceedings, a writ of prohibition be issued to compel the respondent judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila to desist from interfering with the execution of the judgment in civil case No. 48795, and that, pending final determination of these present proceedings, an order be issued an order revoking the preliminary injunction issued by him in civil case No. 55249 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, it is ordered that, upon the filing of a bond in the amount of P100, a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction be issued directing the respondent judge to revoke the preliminary injunction issued by him in the premises and to refrain from interfering in any manner with the execution of the final decision of this court in G.R. No. 45595, and that the respondents be, as they are hereby, required to answer (not to demur to ) said petition within ten days from the receipt of copy thereof.
On August 11, 1939, the respondent judge, in compliance with an order of this court, revoked its ordering granting preliminary injunction, and it is assumed that the execution of the judgment took of the judgment took its regular course.
The fraud or misrepresentation alleged in the complaint which was filed to set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeals and affirmed by this court in G.R. No. 45595, and upon which complaint the preliminary injunction was issued by the Court of First Instance of Manila, is predicated on the averment that the petitioners in civil case No. 48795 of the Court of First Instance of Manila had induced the respondents there "to enter into a false agreed statement of facts," which reads as follows:
. . . 3. That stalls Nos. 1346 to 1360 held by petitioners are adjacent to and immediately follow stalls Nos. 1342-1345 of the said market;
The parties in civil case No. 48795, Court of First Instance of Manila (G.R. No. 45595), having formally entered into a formal stipulations of facts and the decision having been rendered on that stipulation by the Court of Appeals and the decision of the latter court affirmed by the Supreme Court, the party adversely affected by the decision will not, as a rule, be permitted to go back on a general allegation of fraud in entering into that stipulation for the purpose of arresting the execution of the judgment of the Court of Appeals as finally affirmed by this court, after said decision has become final and executory, and a Judge of the Court of First Instance who, upon a complaint to set aside, thus rendered and affirmed, issues a preliminary injunction to restrain the normal course of proceedings leading to the execution of a judgment, exceeds his jurisdiction and may be restrained by prohibition.
Accordingly, the writ of prohibition is hereby granted and the respondent Judge of First Instance ordered to desist from interfering in any manner with the execution of the judgment of the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 73), in civil case No. 48795 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and affirmed by this court in G.R. No. 45595. As a result, the preliminary mandatory injunction issued by this Court is made permanent, with costs against the respondent Ng Woo. So ordered.
Avanceņa, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz and Concepcion, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
