G.R. No. 1240 : April 18, 1903
FRANCISCO ENRIQUEZ, petitioner, vs. BYRON S. AMBLER, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, respondent.

FACTS:
The petitioner, Francisco Enriquez, was the former executor and testamentary administrator of the estate of D. Antonio Enriquez Sequera. In the ongoing administration proceedings, the Court of First Instance, through Judge Arthur F. Odlin, issued an order on December 31, 1902, directing Enriquez to render an account of his administration. For his refusal to comply, the court cited him for contempt. On March 2, 1903, the respondent Judge Byron S. Ambler found Enriquez guilty of contempt and ordered his imprisonment for six months or until he produced the required account. Immediately after the judgment, Enriquez appealed and filed an appeal bond in the amount of $5,000, as required by law. Despite the appeal and bond, the respondent judge scheduled further proceedings for March 3, 1903, to enforce the contempt order. Enriquez filed a petition for prohibition with the Supreme Court, seeking to restrain the respondent judge from executing the contempt judgment, arguing that the filing of the appeal bond divested the Court of First Instance of jurisdiction. The respondent judge filed a demurrer to the petition and moved to dissolve the preliminary injunction issued by the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether the filing of an appeal bond, in accordance with Section 240 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( Act No. 190 ), suspends the execution of a judgment for contempt and deprives the Court of First Instance of jurisdiction to enforce said judgment pending appeal.

RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. The demurrer and the motion to dissolve the injunction were overruled.

The Court held that Section 240 of the Code of Civil Procedure expressly grants the right to appeal a judgment for contempt and provides that execution of the judgment “shall not be suspended until there is filed … an obligation with sureties.” Once such a bond is filed and accepted by the judge, the execution of the contempt judgment is suspended. The statute’s requirement that the appeal await “final judgment in the action” was interpreted to prevent multiple appeals; however, in special proceedings like estate administration where no single final judgment may be rendered, the appeal from the contempt judgment may be perfected immediately. By filing the appeal bond, the Court of First Instance loses its power to enforce the contempt judgment. Any attempt to do so would be in excess of its jurisdiction.

Regarding the preliminary injunction, the Court, following its established practice, treated the writ of prohibition as an ordinary action where a preliminary injunction under Section 229 may issue to prevent an inferior court from proceeding without or in excess of jurisdiction. Thus, the injunction properly remained in effect to maintain the status quo pending resolution of the prohibition proceedings.