G.R. No. L-8331 February 28, 1957.
LOURDES A. BORBON, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. CRESENCIA MANARANG, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The spouses Lourdes A. Borbon and Placido Borbon filed an action in the Municipal Court of Manila to recover possession of certain booths allegedly owned by them and unlawfully detained by Cresencia Manarang. After judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, the defendant appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila. The plaintiffs obtained a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to be placed in possession of the booths. The defendant’s motions to dissolve the writ were denied, prompting her to petition the Court of Appeals for a writ of certiorari to annul the proceedings and to have a writ issued to restore her possession. While this petition was pending, the main case was called for hearing in the Court of First Instance. The plaintiffs presented their evidence. The defendant, through counsel, requested continuances on August 26 and September 8, 1953, which were granted. On September 9, 1953, the defendant’s counsel moved to suspend the hearing, alleging that the defendant had filed a supplemental petition in the Court of Appeals for a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the trial judge from trying the case and that such a writ had been issued. However, no copy of the writ could be presented to the court. The trial court denied the motion and proceeded to render a decision confirming the judgment of the municipal court. The defendant appealed, assigning as error the trial court’s proceeding with the trial despite an alleged injunction order from the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in proceeding with the trial and rendering a decision despite the alleged injunction order from the Court of Appeals.

RULING

The Supreme Court held that the appeal was without merit. The contention that the decision was illegal and void because it was rendered despite a restraining order from the Court of Appeals was without basis. The record showed that when the decision was rendered on September 9, 1953, no restraining order had actually been issued against the Court of First Instance due to the defendant’s failure to file the required bond on time. Therefore, there was no legal impediment for the trial court to proceed with the disposition of the case. The Supreme Court noted that, according to the decision of the Court of Appeals attached to the appellees’ brief, a restraining order was later issued on September 11, 1953, but such an order could not retroact to a prior date to nullify a decision already rendered. The other points raised by the appellant were deemed foreign to her lone assignment of error and were not considered. The appealed decision was affirmed, with costs against the appellant.