G.R. No. L-2945 - OCTOBER 1905 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-2945October 28, 1905 B. H. Macke, et al. vs. Jose Camps G.R. No. L-2353October 28, 1905 Zoilo Garcia Vasquez vs. P. B. Florence G.R. No. L-1595October 28, 1905 Carmen Ayala de Roxas vs. Juan Valencia G.R. No. L-2651October 27, 1905 Macario Carmen vs. Carmen Castro G.R. No. L-2599October 27, 1905 Carmen Linart y Pavia vs. Maria Juana Ugarte E. Iturralde G.R. No. L-1403October 27, 1905 Jose Alemany, et al. vs. Juan Morena G.R. No. L-2346October 26, 1905 Albino Santos, et al. vs. Simplicio del Rosario G.R. No. L-1923October 26, 1905 Ignacio de Icaza, et al. vs. Mateo Perez y Ortega G.R. No. L-1750October 26, 1905 Guillermo Baxter, et al. vs. Zosimo Zuazua, et al. G.R. No. L-1442October 24, 1905 Jose Regalado vs. Maria Gonzaga, et al. G.R. No. L-2536October 23, 1905 Silvina Legaspi vs. John C. Sweeney G.R. No. L-1847October 23, 1905 Vidal Causin vs. Dionisio Jakosalem G.R. No. L-2631October 21, 1905 Edwin H. Warner vs. 771 Objectors, et al. G.R. No. L-2284October 20, 1905 United States vs. Jose Paraiso G.R. No. L-2238October 19, 1905 Leoncia Liuanag vs. Yu-Sonquian G.R. No. L-2091October 18, 1905 Compañia General de Tabacos vs. Sebastian Victor Molina, et al. G.R. No. L-2054October 14, 1905 United States vs. Matias Bunagan G.R. No. L-1962October 12, 1905 Jose Pineda, et al. vs. Gabino Gasataya G.R. No. L-1700October 12, 1905 Miguel Piccio Araneta vs. Jose Garrido G.R. No. L-1273October 10, 1905 United States vs. Benito Vargas, et al. G.R. No. L-2137October 9, 1905 United States vs. Domingo Baluyut G.R. No. L-2124October 7, 1905 Simeon Du-Yungo vs. Macario Barrera G.R. No. L-2123October 3, 1905 Vicente Nery Lim-Chingco vs. Crisanta Terariray, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. B. H. Macke, et al. vs. Jose Camps Zoilo Garcia Vasquez vs. P. B. Florence Carmen Ayala de Roxas vs. Juan Valencia Macario Carmen vs. Carmen Castro Carmen Linart y Pavia vs. Maria Juana Ugarte E. Iturralde Jose Alemany, et al. vs. Juan Morena Albino Santos, et al. vs. Simplicio del Rosario Ignacio de Icaza, et al. vs. Mateo Perez y Ortega Guillermo Baxter, et al. vs. Zosimo Zuazua, et al. Jose Regalado vs. Maria Gonzaga, et al. Silvina Legaspi vs. John C. Sweeney Vidal Causin vs. Dionisio Jakosalem Edwin H. Warner vs. 771 Objectors, et al. United States vs. Jose Paraiso Leoncia Liuanag vs. Yu-Sonquian Compañia General de Tabacos vs. Sebastian Victor Molina, et al. United States vs. Matias Bunagan Jose Pineda, et al. vs. Gabino Gasataya Miguel Piccio Araneta vs. Jose Garrido United States vs. Benito Vargas, et al. United States vs. Domingo Baluyut Simeon Du-Yungo vs. Macario Barrera Vicente Nery Lim-Chingco vs. Crisanta Terariray, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-2945 October 28, 1905
B.H. MACKE, ET AL.,plaintiffs,
vs.
JOSE CAMPS,defendant.
Manuel Gavieres and Enrique Llopis for defendant.
CARSON,J.:
This is in effect an application for an injunction to restrain the Hon. John C. Sweeney, judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and the sheriff of the said city from taking any further steps to enforce the execution of a judgment rendered in said court in the case of B.H. Macke et al.vs. Jose Camps.
The only question submitted at this time is the prayer for preliminary injunction, which we are of opinion must be denied.
Passing over certain defects of form in the application, it is sufficient cause for denial of the preliminary injunction that it does not appear from the facts set up in the complaint that the principal relief prayed for should be granted. It appears from the allegations contained in the complaint that judgment has heretofore been rendered in the above-mentioned cause in favor of the plaintiff, and that the defendant, who is the applicant in these proceedings, has given notice of appeal, and is actually engaged in the preparation of his bill of exceptions. It appears further, that execution has issued on the judgment by special order of the court; and the purpose of these proceedings is to prevent the levy of that execution, pending appeal.lawphil.net
Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that —
Except by special order of the court, no execution shall issue upon a final judgment rendered in the Court of First Instance until after the period for perfecting a bill of exceptions has expired.
Thus the legislator has placed the issuance of the order complained of in the discretion of the trial court, and this court will not interfere to modify, control, or inquire into the exercise of this discretion, which is thus conferred by statute, unless it be alleged and proven that there has been an abuse or excess of authority on the part of the trial judge, or unless it appears that since the issuance of the order conditions have so far changed as to necessitate the intervention of the appellate court to protect the interests of the parties against contingencies which were not contemplated by the trial judge at the time of the issuance of the order (Jeromevs. McCarter, 21 Wallace, U.S., 17;1Calvovs. Gutierrez et al.,24 Off. Gaz., 193.)
It does not appear from the complaint in this case that any of these reasons exist as a basis for relief, and therefore the prayer for preliminary injunction should be denied. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, and Johnson, JJ., concur.
Willard, J., concurs in the result.
Footnotes
188 U.S., 17
24 Phil. Rep., 203.