G.R. No. L-23826 September 28, 1970
EUFROCINA FLORENTIN ELLA, JUANITO ELLA, CONCEPCION CALVO Y AMOR, and FLORA P. ARMOVIT, petitioners, vs. THE HON. JUDGE ANGELINO C. SALANGA, OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOCOS SUR, SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS & COMMUNICATIONS, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS, COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS, HIGHWAYS DISTRICT ENGINEER OF ILOCOS SUR, PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF ILOCOS SUR, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners filed a complaint for specific performance in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur to compel government officials to pay them P52,606.50 as the price for their land, which they alleged the government had agreed to purchase as a site for the North Luzon Tuberculosis Sanitarium. The case was raffled to Branch II in Vigan, where Judge Ulpiano C. Dumaual issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the defendants from negotiating for another land and from disbursing the earmarked amount. After Judge Dumaual’s demise and subsequent judicial reassignments, the case was being heard in Branch II in Narvacan. Respondent Caridad Aguila, whose land was the subject of the alternative government negotiation, filed an ex parte motion with respondent Judge Angelino C. Salanga (then acting as Executive Judge and authorized to hold court in Vigan) to transfer the case records from Narvacan to his sala in Vigan. Judge Salanga granted the motion and later, upon another motion by Aguila, dissolved the preliminary injunction upon the filing of a P20,000 bond. Petitioners challenged these orders via certiorari and prohibition. During the pendency of the petition, it was disclosed that the government had paid Aguila P60,000 for her land on November 6, 1964. Petitioners also filed a motion for contempt against respondents for allegedly disobeying this Court’s preliminary injunction issued on November 20, 1964.

ISSUE

1. Whether respondent Judge acted validly in ordering the transfer of the case from Branch II (Narvacan) to his sala in Vigan upon an ex parte motion.
2. Whether respondent Judge acted validly in dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction issued by Branch II.
3. Whether respondents are guilty of contempt for disobeying the preliminary injunction issued by this Court.

RULING

1. Yes. The order of transfer was valid. The different branches of a Court of First Instance in one province do not possess independent jurisdictions. Jurisdiction is vested in the court as a whole, not in any particular branch or judge. Therefore, Judge Salanga, as a judge of the same court, had the authority to order the transfer of the case from one branch to another for purposes of expediency and the orderly administration of justice. The transfer did not constitute an improper interference with the proceedings of a co-equal court.
2. Yes. The dissolution of the preliminary injunction was a valid exercise of discretion. Section 6, Rule 58 allows dissolution upon grounds such as undue delay causing irreparable public interest damage, as cited by respondent Judge. The dissolution was conditioned upon the filing of a P20,000 bond by respondent Aguila. The damage to petitioners was not irreparable as it was compensable in money. Furthermore, the circumstance that two original plaintiffs had sold their shares in the subject land indicated the land might no longer be suitable for the intended purpose.
3. No. Respondents are not guilty of contempt. The act sought to be enjoined by this Court’s writ of preliminary injunction (the payment to Aguila) occurred on November 6, 1964. This Court’s injunction was issued on November 20, 1964, fourteen days after the act. Therefore, the injunction could not have been disobeyed, as the events sought to be prevented had already transpired.
WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed, the writ of preliminary injunction issued by this Court is dissolved, and the motion for contempt is denied. No costs.