Back to Index
1966 / Sep

G.R. No. L-21988 - SEPTEMBER 1966 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-21988September 30, 1966 Alicia S. Gonzales, et al. vs. Secretary of Public Works and Communications, et al. G.R. No. L-21766September 30, 1966 Felicisima Ballecer, et al. vs. Jose Bernardo, et al. G.R. No. L-21475September 30, 1966 Amancio Balite vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. L-21193September 30, 1966 In Re: Anacleto Lim Anacleto Lim vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-20657September 30, 1966 Philippine National Bank vs. Bernardo P. Landeta, et al. G.R. No. L-20483September 30, 1966 In re: Yong Sai Yong Sai vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-20149September 30, 1966 In re: Manuel Spirig Lim Manuel Spirig Lim vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-23140September 29, 1966 Marta Mendoza, et al. vs. Felisa Reyes, et al. G.R. No. L-21967September 29, 1966 Eduardo G. Bautista vs. Macario Peralta, et al. G.R. No. L-21609September 29, 1966 Republic of the Philippines vs. Ker & Company, Ltd., et al. G.R. No. L-21571September 29, 1966 Mercy's Inc. vs. Herminia Verde, et al. G.R. No. L-21419September 29, 1966 People of the Philippines vs. Narciso de Garcia, et al. G.R. No. L-21282September 29, 1966 Consolacion Insurance and Surety Company, Inc. vs. Angel H. Mojica, et al. G.R. No. L-20609September 29, 1966 Juan de Borja, et al. vs. Eulogio Mencias, et al. G.R. No. L-19808September 29, 1966 Eldo J. Cariño, et al. vs. Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration, et al. G.R. No. L-19560September 29, 1966 Caltex (Philippines), Inc. vs. Enrico Palomar, et al. G.R. No. L-19082September 29, 1966 In re: Casiano King Casiano King vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-18760September 29, 1966 People of the Philippines vs. Kamad Akiran, et al. G.R. No. L-22031September 28, 1966 Chan Shu Lou vs. Martiniano P. Vivo, et al. G.R. No. L-21438September 28, 1966 Air France vs. Rafael Carrascoso, et al. G.R. No. L-21412September 28, 1966 Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. G.R. No. L-26387September 27, 1966 Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Spouses Adriano V. Santos & Maritina Habacon G.R. No. L-24736September 27, 1966 Francisco Malvar, et al. vs. Pablo Pallingayan, et al. G.R. No. L-21962September 27, 1966 Rodolfo Garcia, et al. vs. Philippine Refining Co., Inc. G.R. No. L-21875September 27, 1966 Mary Burke Desbarats, et al. vs. Josefina Segarra vda. de Laureano, et al. G.R. No. L-21871September 27, 1966 Philippine Refinig Co., Inc. vs. Rodolfo Garcia, et al. G.R. No. L-21224September 27, 1966 People of the Philippines vs. Carmen Planas, et al. G.R. No. L-21170September 27, 1966 Leonardo Cabudol, et al. vs. Numeriano G. Estenzo, etc. G.R. No. L-20988September 27, 1966 Jacinto Decena vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-20438September 27, 1966 New Manila Lumber Company, Inc. vs. Fermin Centino, et al. G.R. No. L-24873September 23, 1966 Spouses Basilisa Roque and Francisco Bautista, et al. vs. Araceli W. vda. del Rosario, et al. G.R. No. L-24702 and L-26357September 23, 1966 Fabian Garcia, et al. vs. Eloy B. Bello, et al. G.R. No. L-22531September 23, 1966 Remia Riego, et al. vs. Pablo Riego, et al. G.R. No. L-22170September 23, 1966 In Re: Bartha Ann Rivera Roberth H. Cathey vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-21697September 23, 1966 Fred Enriquez vs. Domingo M. Cabangon, et al. G.R. No. L-21413September 23, 1966 Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. G.R. No. L-21212September 23, 1966 Citizens League of Freeworkers, et al. vs. Macapanton Abbas, et al. G.R. No. L-20946September 23, 1966 Eugenio C. del Prado vs. Aurea S. Santos, et al. G.R. No. L-19259September 23, 1966 General Travel Service, Ltd. vs. Edilberto Y. David, et al. G.R. No. L-22797September 22, 1966 Testacy of Maxima Santos vda. de Blas Rosalina Santos vs. Flora Blas de Buenaventura, et al. G.R. No. L-20645September 22, 1966 Go Tian Chai vs. Commissioner of Immigration, et al. G.R. No. L-19798September 20, 1966 People of the Philippines vs. Alod Manobo, et al. G.R. No. L-19961September 14, 1966 Pilar Reyes vs. Jose M. Santos, et al. G.R. No. L-17009September 13, 1966 British-American Engineering Corporation vs. Alto Surety & Insurance Company, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-23681September 3, 1966 People of the Philippines vs. Honorato Genilla, et al. G.R. No. L-20867September 3, 1966 Salvador Aprueba, et al. vs. Rodolfo Ganzon, et al. G.R. No. L-20851September 3, 1966 Jesus Aguirre vs. Victor S. Peng, et al. G.R. No. L-20745September 2, 1966 Dolores Granada, et al. vs. Philippine National Bank, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Alicia S. Gonzales, et al. vs. Secretary of Public Works and Communications, et al. Felicisima Ballecer, et al. vs. Jose Bernardo, et al. Amancio Balite vs. People of the Philippines In Re: Anacleto Lim Anacleto Lim vs. Republic of the Philippines Philippine National Bank vs. Bernardo P. Landeta, et al. In re: Yong Sai Yong Sai vs. Republic of the Philippines In re: Manuel Spirig Lim Manuel Spirig Lim vs. Republic of the Philippines Marta Mendoza, et al. vs. Felisa Reyes, et al. Eduardo G. Bautista vs. Macario Peralta, et al. Republic of the Philippines vs. Ker & Company, Ltd., et al. Mercy's Inc. vs. Herminia Verde, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Narciso de Garcia, et al. Consolacion Insurance and Surety Company, Inc. vs. Angel H. Mojica, et al. Juan de Borja, et al. vs. Eulogio Mencias, et al. Eldo J. Cariño, et al. vs. Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration, et al. Caltex (Philippines), Inc. vs. Enrico Palomar, et al. In re: Casiano King Casiano King vs. Republic of the Philippines People of the Philippines vs. Kamad Akiran, et al. Chan Shu Lou vs. Martiniano P. Vivo, et al. Air France vs. Rafael Carrascoso, et al. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Spouses Adriano V. Santos & Maritina Habacon Francisco Malvar, et al. vs. Pablo Pallingayan, et al. Rodolfo Garcia, et al. vs. Philippine Refining Co., Inc. Mary Burke Desbarats, et al. vs. Josefina Segarra vda. de Laureano, et al. Philippine Refinig Co., Inc. vs. Rodolfo Garcia, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Carmen Planas, et al. Leonardo Cabudol, et al. vs. Numeriano G. Estenzo, etc. Jacinto Decena vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al. New Manila Lumber Company, Inc. vs. Fermin Centino, et al. Spouses Basilisa Roque and Francisco Bautista, et al. vs. Araceli W. vda. del Rosario, et al. Fabian Garcia, et al. vs. Eloy B. Bello, et al. Remia Riego, et al. vs. Pablo Riego, et al. In Re: Bartha Ann Rivera Roberth H. Cathey vs. Republic of the Philippines Fred Enriquez vs. Domingo M. Cabangon, et al. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. Citizens League of Freeworkers, et al. vs. Macapanton Abbas, et al. Eugenio C. del Prado vs. Aurea S. Santos, et al. General Travel Service, Ltd. vs. Edilberto Y. David, et al. Testacy of Maxima Santos vda. de Blas Rosalina Santos vs. Flora Blas de Buenaventura, et al. Go Tian Chai vs. Commissioner of Immigration, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Alod Manobo, et al. Pilar Reyes vs. Jose M. Santos, et al. British-American Engineering Corporation vs. Alto Surety & Insurance Company, Inc., et al. People of the Philippines vs. Honorato Genilla, et al. Salvador Aprueba, et al. vs. Rodolfo Ganzon, et al. Jesus Aguirre vs. Victor S. Peng, et al. Dolores Granada, et al. vs. Philippine National Bank, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-21988             September 30, 1966

ALICIA S. GONZALES, represented by her Attorney-in-Fact,
HUMBERTO DE LOS SANTOS,petitioner-appellant,
vs.
THE SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, DISTRICT ENGINEER, Province of Davao and
LUCIA O. TOLENTINO,respondents-appellees.

Aportadera and Palabrica for petitioner and appellant.
Office of the Solicitor General Alafriz for respondent and appellee Secretary of Public Works and Communications.
Tolentino, Amoguis and Maderazo for other respondents and appellees.


CONCEPCION,C.J.:

Appeal by petitioner Alicia S. Gonzales from an order of the Court of First Instance of Davao dismissing Civil Case No. 3689 thereof.

The records show that, acting upon a letter-complaint filed by Lucia O. Tolentino, and after hearing Alicia S. Gonzales, among others, the Undersecretary of Public Works and Communications rendered, on July 11, 1961, a decision ordering the demolition of certain dams constructed by Gonzales and three other persons across Cabatan River and seemingly enclosing Gonzales' fishponds in Magbongcogon, Lupon, Davao. On subsequent motion of Gonzales, this decision was reconsidered by the Head of said Department on September 7. However, on appeal taken by Tolentino, the last action thus taken by said Department Head was, on December 1, 1961, reversed by the Office of the President, which ordered the dams aforementioned demolished. Accordingly, said Department directed the District Engineer of Davao to proceed with the demolition of the dams. A reconsideration of the decision of the Executive having been, subsequently, denied, on January 16, 1962, the District Engineer of Davao advised Gonzales that the former's representatives would execute said decision.

Hence, on January 17, 1962, Gonzales commenced against the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, the District Engineer of Davao and Lucia O. Tolentino, said Civil Case No. 3689, which is an action forcertiorari, prohibition with preliminary injunction and/or preliminary mandatory injunction, to prevent the demolition of petitioner's dams in compliance with the departmental order aforementioned. Acting upon a motion to dismiss filed by respondent Tolentino and upon the authority ofSamar Mining Co. vs. Arnaldo, G.R. No. L-17709 (June 30, 1961) andAcosta vs,. Alvendia, G.R. No. L-14598 (October 31, 1960), the lower court dismissed the case. A reconsideration of the order to this effect having been denied, Gonzales interposed the present appeal.

The only question raised therein is whether the Court of First Instance of Davao had jurisdiction to entertain said Case No. 3689, considering that its main purpose was to prevent the enforcement of a decision of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, who is in Manila. The cases relied upon in the order appealed from do not justify the conclusion reached therein.

The Acosta case referred to a writ of preliminary injunction issued by the Court of First Instance of Manila restraining the Sheriff ofNueva Ecijafrom enforcing or executing the decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations in a tenancy case involving lands situated in Nueva Ecija. The Supreme Court held that the said Court of First Instance had overstepped its authority in issuing said writ.

The Samar Mining case involved a petition forcertiorariand prohibition with preliminary injunction, filed with the Court of First Instance ofManila, to restrain the Regional Administrator and the Labor Attorney of the Department of Labor in its Regional Office No. VI, established in the City ofCebu, from further proceedings in a given Workmen's Compensation case in that City. Applying Section 44(h) of the Judiciary Act of 1948 (R.A. No. 296) and Rule 67, Sec. 4 of the Rules of Court, we held that said Court had no authority to issue the writ prayed for.

This view was reiterated inAlhambra Cigar and Cigarette Co. vs. The National Administrator of Regional Office No. 2, G.R. No. L-20491 (August 31, 1965), which was a case ofcertiorariand prohibition, with preliminary injunction, filed with the Court of First Instance ofManilato restrain and prohibit the hearing officer and the Administrator of Labor Regional Office No. 2 established inTuguegarao, Cagayan, from hearing, deciding and otherwise taking further action on a given claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

These cases have the following things in common, namely: 1) they were filed inManila; 2) they sought to restrain the performance of certain actsoutsideManila; and 3) it was held that the court of first instance of Manila hadnojurisdiction to grant the relief prayed for, because "the authority of courts of first instance to control or restrain acts by means of the writ of injunction islimited to acts which are being committed or about to be committed within the territorial boundaries of their respective provinces or districts."

In the case at bar, the acts sought to be restrained were about to be performed within the territorial boundaries of the province of Davao,in which the lower court is sitting. Hence, the above cases uphold the jurisdiction of the said court to hear this case and decide whether or not the relief prayed for by petitioner-appellant may or should be granted.1awphîl.nèt

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is reversed and the record remanded to the lower court for further proceedings, with the costs of this instance against respondent-appellee, Lucia O. Tolentino. It is so ordered.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.
Barrera, J., is on leave.