G.R. No. L-13324 - OCTOBER 1961 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-13324October 31, 1961 Marcelo Caguio, et al. vs. Bacolod-Murcia Farmers' Corp., et al. G.R. No. L-14279October 31, 1961 Commissioner of Customs, et al. vs. Eastern Sea Trading G.R. No. L-14409October 31, 1961 Agapito Fuellas vs. Elpidio Cadano, et al. G.R. No. L-14456October 31, 1961 People of the Philippines vs. Galbon Ijad, et al. G.R. Nos. L-14948 and L-14972October 31, 1961 Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. G.R. No. L-15596October 31, 1961 Rufino M. Cortez vs. Florentino Manimbo G.R. No. L-15597October 31, 1961 Rufino M. Cortez vs. Tomas Manimbo G.R. No. L-15772October 31, 1961 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Church of Jesus Christ "New Jerusalem" G.R. No. L-15868October 31, 1961 Philippine International Surety Co., Inc. vs. Fausto Gonzales, et al. G.R. No. L-15934October 31, 1961 Carmen Planas vs. Collector of Internal Revenue G.R. No. L-15995October 31, 1961 Rufino Delantes vs. Go Tao & Company G.R. No. L-16031October 31, 1961 Concordia Cagalawan vs. Customs Canteen, et al. G.R. No. L-16108October 31, 1961 In Re: Eleuteria Feliseta Tan. Eleuteria Feliseta Tan vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-16271October 31, 1961 Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. G.R. No. L-16290October 31, 1961 Santos Tabuena, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, etc., et al. G.R. No. L-16370October 31, 1961 Jose S. Galvez vs. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, et al. G.R. No. L-16476October 31, 1961 Leoncio Kimpo vs. Nemesio T. Tabañar G.R. No. L-16735October 31, 1961 Fructuoso Alquesa, et al. vs. Blas G. Cavada, Jr., et al. G.R. No. L-16786October 31, 1961 Emiliano M. Perez vs. City Mayor of Cabanatuan, et al. G.R. No. L-17072October 31, 1961 Cristina Marcelo Vda. de Bautista vs. Brigida Marcos, et al. G.R. No. L-17186October 31, 1961 Government Service Insurance System vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-17363October 31, 1961 Pedro Olase vs. Government Service Insurance System, et al. G.R. No. L-17384October 31, 1961 Nestor Rigor Vda. de Quiambao, et al. vs. Manila Motor Company, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-17953October 31, 1961 Leslie H. Brown, et al. vs. Salud Q. Brown, et al. G.R. No. L-14150October 30, 1961 People of the Philippines vs. Alejandro Clarit, et al. G.R. No. L-15865October 30, 1961 People of the Philippines vs. Mardonio Surbida G.R. No. L-16403October 30, 1961 San Miguel Brewery, Inc., et al. vs. Jesus Betia, et al. G.R. No. L-17395October 30, 1961 Isidro de Leon vs. Crisanto Aragon G.R. No. L-12518October 28, 1961 Collector of Internal Revenue vs. J.C. Yuseco, et al. G.R. No. L-14045October 28, 1961 People of the Philippines vs. Virgilio C. Cabral, et al. G.R. Nos. L-16943-44October 28, 1961 People of the Philippines vs. David Dichupa G.R. No. L-14968October 27, 1961 George McEntee vs. Perpetua Manotok G.R. No. L-15584October 27, 1961 People of the Philippines vs. Pacifico Peczon, et al. G.R. No. L-16287October 27, 1961 Julian de Lemos vs. Manuel E. Castañeda, et al. G.R. No. L-16492October 27, 1961 Maria Salao Vda. de Santos vs. Estelita G. Barrera, et al. G.R. No. L-16504October 27, 1961 Republic of the Philippines vs. Ernesto S. Gamboa G.R. No. L-16538October 27, 1961 "Y" Shipping Corp. vs. Agustin Borcelis, et al. G.R. No. L-16592October 27, 1961 Enrique Icasiano vs. Felisa Icasiano G.R. No. L-16938October 27, 1961 People of the Philippines vs. Rudy Escare G.R. No. L-17055October 27, 1961 Manuel Lao vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-17707October 27, 1961 Manuel F. Portillo vs. Luis B. Reyes, et al. G.R. No. L-15108October 26, 1961 Fortunato F. Halili vs. Eleuterio Semaña G.R. No. L-15955October 26, 1961 In Re: Narciso Ching. Narciso Ching vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-16254October 26, 1961 Gregorio Abing, et al. vs. Ago Amistad, et al. G.R. No. L-18275October 26, 1961 Cotabato Rice Mill, Inc. vs. Salazar Adam G.R. No. L-14321October 20, 1961 Saturnino Moldero vs. Renee J. Yandoc, et al. G.R. No. L-16109October 20, 1961 People of the Philippines vs. Isabelo Almirez G.R. No. L-5733October 19, 1961 Northwest Tractor & Equipment (Phil.) Corp. vs. Morales Shipping Company, Inc. G.R. No. L-14957October 19, 1961 Co Ke Tong vs. Director of Prisons G.R. No. L-16135October 19, 1961 Napoleon R. Malolos vs. Andres Reyes, etc., et al. G.R. No. L-16495October 19, 1961 La Mallorca-Pambusco vs. Cirilo Isip, et al. G.R. No. L-11870October 16, 1961 People of the Philippines vs. Benito Cruz, et al. G.R. No. L-17721October 16, 1961 Gregorio Apelario vs. Ines Chavez & Company, Ltd., et al. G.R. No. L-15525October 11, 1961 Municipality of Lucban vs. National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority G.R. No. L-15959October 11, 1961 People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo Peralta, et al. G.R. No. L-17722October 9, 1961 Mauricio Gordulan vs. Cesareo Gordulan The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Marcelo Caguio, et al. vs. Bacolod-Murcia Farmers' Corp., et al. Commissioner of Customs, et al. vs. Eastern Sea Trading Agapito Fuellas vs. Elpidio Cadano, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Galbon Ijad, et al. Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. Rufino M. Cortez vs. Florentino Manimbo Rufino M. Cortez vs. Tomas Manimbo Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Church of Jesus Christ "New Jerusalem" Philippine International Surety Co., Inc. vs. Fausto Gonzales, et al. Carmen Planas vs. Collector of Internal Revenue Rufino Delantes vs. Go Tao & Company Concordia Cagalawan vs. Customs Canteen, et al. In Re: Eleuteria Feliseta Tan. Eleuteria Feliseta Tan vs. Republic of the Philippines Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. Santos Tabuena, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, etc., et al. Jose S. Galvez vs. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, et al. Leoncio Kimpo vs. Nemesio T. Tabañar Fructuoso Alquesa, et al. vs. Blas G. Cavada, Jr., et al. Emiliano M. Perez vs. City Mayor of Cabanatuan, et al. Cristina Marcelo Vda. de Bautista vs. Brigida Marcos, et al. Government Service Insurance System vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Pedro Olase vs. Government Service Insurance System, et al. Nestor Rigor Vda. de Quiambao, et al. vs. Manila Motor Company, Inc., et al. Leslie H. Brown, et al. vs. Salud Q. Brown, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Alejandro Clarit, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Mardonio Surbida San Miguel Brewery, Inc., et al. vs. Jesus Betia, et al. Isidro de Leon vs. Crisanto Aragon Collector of Internal Revenue vs. J.C. Yuseco, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Virgilio C. Cabral, et al. People of the Philippines vs. David Dichupa George McEntee vs. Perpetua Manotok People of the Philippines vs. Pacifico Peczon, et al. Julian de Lemos vs. Manuel E. Castañeda, et al. Maria Salao Vda. de Santos vs. Estelita G. Barrera, et al. Republic of the Philippines vs. Ernesto S. Gamboa "Y" Shipping Corp. vs. Agustin Borcelis, et al. Enrique Icasiano vs. Felisa Icasiano People of the Philippines vs. Rudy Escare Manuel Lao vs. Republic of the Philippines Manuel F. Portillo vs. Luis B. Reyes, et al. Fortunato F. Halili vs. Eleuterio Semaña In Re: Narciso Ching. Narciso Ching vs. Republic of the Philippines Gregorio Abing, et al. vs. Ago Amistad, et al. Cotabato Rice Mill, Inc. vs. Salazar Adam Saturnino Moldero vs. Renee J. Yandoc, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Isabelo Almirez Northwest Tractor & Equipment (Phil.) Corp. vs. Morales Shipping Company, Inc. Co Ke Tong vs. Director of Prisons Napoleon R. Malolos vs. Andres Reyes, etc., et al. La Mallorca-Pambusco vs. Cirilo Isip, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Benito Cruz, et al. Gregorio Apelario vs. Ines Chavez & Company, Ltd., et al. Municipality of Lucban vs. National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo Peralta, et al. Mauricio Gordulan vs. Cesareo Gordulan The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-13324            October 31, 1961

MARCELO CAGUIO, ET AL.,petitioners,
vs.
THE BACOLOD-MURCIA FARMERS' CORPORATION represented by HIEROTEO R. VILLAROSA,respondents.

PAREDES,J.:

On November 16, 1957, Hieroteo R. Villarosa and others, members of the Bacolod-Murcia Sugar Farmers' Corporation, filed with the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental a petition for a Writ of Mandamus (Special Civil Action No. 4607), to compel the Permit Agent of the Sugar Quota Administration, detailed with the Bacolod-Murcia Mill District, to sign their quedan-permits for the sugar milled and stored with the Central (Bacolod-Murcia Milling). Judge Eduardo E. Enriquez directed that the same will be heard three (3) days later and required Salvador Pacis, the Permit Agent then detailed in the District, to answer within the 3-day period. Pacis asked for an extension of time within which to file an Answer, and for the postponement of the scheduled hearing. Both were denied and on November 22, 1957, three days after he was served with summons, hearing was held. In his Answer, after the usual admissions and denials, Pacis interposed as affirmative defense, among others, the following —

Under date of November 29, 1957, judgment was rendered by the courta quo, the pertinent portion of which reads: —

A copy of the decision was served at the office of Atty. Arboleda, counsel for Pacis on December 4, 1957. On this date the petitioners filed a motion for immediate execution of the decision and notwithstanding a petition for a one-day postponement until December 7, for the consideration of said motion for immediate execution, presented by counsel on the ground that on that date (Dec. 6), he would be attending a case in Iloilo; the trial judge granted on December 6, in the absence of Pacis or counsel, the motion for immediate execution in an Order of the following tenor —

Marcelo Caguioa, the Acting Sugar Supervisor, representing the Sugar Quota Administrator in Negros Occidental, appeared before the trial Judge on December 7, where he was subjected to anex parteexamination. Caguioa attempted to have the order inquiring him to sign the quedan permits in question, set aside or that he be granted sufficient time to consult his superiors and main office, as to what steps he should take in the premises. On December 11, 1957, for failure of Caguioa to sign the quedan permits, the trial judge handed an Order, the dispositive portion of which reads —

On December 28, 1957, Marcelo Caguioa and Salvador Pacis instituted the proceedings at bar forCertiorariand Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction, directed against the trial judge and the Bacolod-Murcia Farmers' Corporation.

Petitioners submit that the respondent Judge (1) committed an abuse of discretion in issuing his order, particularly those of December 6, 1957 and December 11, 1957, as far as petitioner Salvador Pacis is concerned; and (2) acted without jurisdiction and with abuse of discretion in issuing the same orders, as far as petitioner Marcelo Caguioa is concerned.

(1) It is alleged that when case No. 4607 was filed, the respondent judge directed Pacis to answer the petition within 3 days and set the hearing of the case 3 days after he was served of the petition; that notwithstanding his motion for an extension of said periods, so as to contact his superior officers in Manila and await from them the corresponding instructions and to engage the services of a government counsel, said judge compelled him to enter into trial, thereby depriving him of his day in court and had to seek the services of an attorney in private practice to defend him; that he was denied due process when the respondent judge refused the inclusion of his superiors (the Sugar Quota Administrator and the Secretary of Commerce and Industry), as defendants in said case in order that the legality and propriety of his actuations in the premises would be defined; and in upholding the contention of the petitioners in said case No. 4607, respondent committed abuse of discretion, as he was in effect compelling the petitioner Pacis to disobey and defy the orders of his superiors.

The aforesaid order of December 6, 1957, was entered, upon a motion for execution of the petitioners in the special civil action for mandamus, in accordance with sections 2, 9 and 10, Rule 39, Rules of Court. There can be no question of the power and competence of the court which rendered the decision aforesaid to enter said order. In view of the extreme urgency of the case, as expressed in the court's decision, the respondent Judge had to exercise its power to expedite the proceeding.

And there is likewise no question that the trial court had jurisdiction and authority to issue the special order of execution, and had the power to employ means of proceeding not specifically pointed out by the Rules, provided it is in conformity with the spirit thereof (Sec. 5 par. (c), 6 of Rule 124).

The said order of December 6, 1957, among other things, directed the District Sugar Supervisor to sign the permit portions of the quedan-permits referred to in the decision of the court dated November 29, 1957 "in behalf or in lieu of the said respondent permit agent." This directive is authorized by section 10, Rule 39 which states —

(2) It is claimed that respondent Judge acted without jurisdiction and with abuse of discretion in issuing the same orders (a) because Marcelo Caguioa was not and has never been a party in case No. 4607, as the sole respondent therein was Salvador Pacis and could not "properly assert a defense particularly approved by statutes and precedents"; and (b) that in so requiring petitioner Caguioa to act in lieu of Pacis, the respondent judge, in effect amended the decision issued by him in Case No. 4607, without any motion or pleading on the part of any parties to have said decision so amended.

It should be recalled that with the resolution of this Court of March 12, 1958, ruling on the motion for clarification filed by respondents on the scope and extent of the preliminary injunction issued herein, there can no longer be any dispute as to the validity and binding effect of the decision rendered by the lower court, the said resolution having directed that the immediate execution of said decision should be excluded from the writ of preliminary injunction. In sanctioning the immediate execution of the decision of the lower court, this tribunal necessarily considered such decision as rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, lawfully exercising its judicial functions over the question and matters involved therein. In the identical case of G.R. No. L-13702, filed by Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Fernando Ereñeta and six other planters, versus Adolfo M. Santos, the Secretary of Commerce and Industry and others, one of the issues raised was the validity of a requirement of said Secretary that a planter should be a member of a planters' association and one approved by one before his quedan-permit could be signed by the Permit Agent, Judge Jose F. Fernandez of Negros Occidental ordered the permit agent to sign the quedan portions of the quedan permits, which order was taken to this Court on Certiorari and Prohibition, with a prayer for preliminary injunction. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit. It should also be noted that the decision in question has now become final as it was not appealed.

Has the court jurisdiction to order petitioner Caguioa to sign the quedan-permits as a substitute of Pacis and if he disobeys, is he amenable for contempt? The answer should be in the affirmative, considering the fact that the duty to sign, according to the law, rested upon the Sugar Quota Administrator, whose District Sugar Supervisor in the milling district was Caguioa and whose Permit Agent was Pacis, a party in the Mandamus case. And any other person could have been ordered to do so, as in fact, the Clerk of Court was ultimately directed to sign for the Permit Agent (Sec. 10, Rule 39,supra).

IN VIEW HEREOF, the petition is dismissed, the writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued is hereby dissolved, with costs against petitioners.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon and De Leon, JJ.,concur.