GR 2374; (April, 1905) (Digest)
G.R. No. 2374 : April 26, 1905
RUBERT & GUAMIS, petitioner, vs. JOHN C. SWEENEY, respondent.
FACTS:
The partnership of Rubert & Guamis, a creditor of Miss A. Hunter, commenced an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila against Lo Shui (a judgment creditor of Hunter) and the sheriff. They sought to establish a better right to certain personal property of Hunter that had been seized by the sheriff under an execution in favor of Lo Shui. The court granted a preliminary injunction restraining the sheriff’s sale. Subsequently, Rubert & Guamis and Lo Shui entered into a stipulation, approved by the court, allowing the sale to proceed with the sheriff holding the proceeds subject to the final judgment in their case. After the sale, the defendants moved to dissolve the injunction. The court issued an order modifying the injunction, directing the sheriff to deposit the proceeds with the clerk of court and authorizing the clerk to release the money to Lo Shui upon his filing a satisfactory bond to hold the funds subject to the court’s orders. Rubert & Guamis then filed this original action for prohibition in the Supreme Court to prevent the enforcement of the order modifying the injunction, arguing that the court below acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction by disregarding the parties’ stipulation.
ISSUE:
Whether a writ of prohibition is the proper remedy to annul an order of the Court of First Instance modifying a preliminary injunction, where it is alleged that the modification violated a stipulation between the parties that had been approved by the court.
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition for prohibition. The Court held that the writ of prohibition under Section 516 of the Code of Civil Procedure lies only when a tribunal acts without or in excess of the jurisdiction conferred upon it by law. It does not apply to correct errors or acts allegedly in violation of a stipulation between the parties. The Court of First Instance had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the main case and the parties, as well as the statutory power to grant, modify, or dissolve a preliminary injunction. Any error in disregarding the stipulation was an error of judgment within the court’s jurisdiction, correctible by appeal and not by prohibition. The petition was dismissed, with costs against the petitioner.