G.R. No. L-23783 April 25, 1968
JRS BUSINESS CORPORATION and JOSE R. DA SILVA, petitioners, vs. THE HON. AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and THE IMPERIAL INSURANCE, INC., respondents.

FACTS

This is a petition for mandamus with preliminary mandatory injunction. The case stems from a prior Supreme Court decision (G.R. No. L-19891, July 31, 1964) involving the same parties. In that prior case, a compromise agreement between JRS Business Corporation and Jose R. Da Silva (as debtors) and Imperial Insurance, Inc. (as creditor) was approved by the court, resulting in a judgment for a sum of money. For failure to pay, Imperial Insurance moved for execution. At the public auction, Imperial Insurance bought the properties of JRS Business Corporation, including its franchise, trade name, and capital stocks, for P10,000.00 and took possession. In the 1964 decision, the Supreme Court SET ASIDE the sale insofar as it authorized the levy and sale of the corporation’s franchise, trade name, and capital stocks, ruling these were not subject to such execution under the circumstances. After this decision became final, petitioners filed motions in the lower court (presided by respondent Judge Montesa) for execution and restitution of the franchise, trade name, and capital stocks. Respondent Judge issued an order directing the Sheriff to act in conformity with the Supreme Court’s decision. The Sheriff then notified Imperial Insurance that these items were excluded from the sale. Petitioners then filed a motion for immediate restitution of these assets. Respondent Judge denied this motion for restitution. Petitioners now seek mandamus to compel the judge to order such restitution, claiming grave abuse of discretion. Notably, in the present proceedings, JRS Business Corporation (under new management after the auction) joined the respondents’ answer, leaving Jose R. Da Silva as the effective sole petitioner.

ISSUE

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue to compel respondent Judge to order the restitution of the franchise, trade name, and capital stocks of JRS Business Corporation to petitioner Jose R. Da Silva.

RULING

No, the petition for mandamus is denied. Mandamus does not lie. The Supreme Court’s 1964 decision specifically set aside the sale only with respect to the properties of the petitioner corporation (JRS Business Corporation), namely its franchise, trade name, and capital stocks. The right recognized and vindicated by that decision was a right belonging to the corporation itself. The decision is silent concerning any personal right of petitioner Jose R. Da Silva. Therefore, Da Silva has no clear, certain, and specific legal right to the restitution of the corporate assets that he can enforce via mandamus. The writ of mandamus requires a clear legal right in the petitioner and a correlative duty in the respondent. Since Da Silva’s legal right is not well-defined, clear, and certain, the petition must be dismissed. The Court also notes that the lower court had already complied with the 1964 decision by issuing an order for execution in conformity with it.