G.R. No. L-23887 December 26, 1967
AGO TIMBER CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. JESUS S. RUIZ, Court of First Instance of Agusan, EXCELLENT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, SHERIFF OF AGUSAN and SHERIFF OF MANILA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ago Timber Corporation and respondent Excellent Management Corporation entered into a management contract and an irrevocable power of attorney on August 1 and 2, 1963, respectively. On September 30, 1963, Ago Timber informed Excellent Management that it was taking over its logging operations due to the latter’s alleged failure to perform. On October 28, 1964, Ago Timber filed an action for rescission of the contract and damages in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 58827). Summons was served on Excellent Management on November 3, 1964. Excellent Management subsequently filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Agusan (Special Civil Case No. 182) against Ago Timber for injunction, attachment, garnishment, and damages, seeking to enforce the same contract. On November 6, 1964, the Agusan court, through Judge Jesus S. Ruiz, issued ex parte a writ of preliminary injunction and a writ of attachment and garnishment. Ago Timber moved to dismiss the Agusan case on the ground of litis pendentia. The petition filed in Agusan bore a rubber stamp mark of receipt dated “Nov. 19” with a superimposed handwritten date “Oct 24 64,” the injunction bond was dated November 5, 1964, and the official receipt for the filing fee was dated November 6, 1964. Court personnel explained the petition was received on October 24, 1964, but the filing fee was only paid on November 6, 1964. Ago Timber petitioned the Supreme Court, alleging the Agusan court’s order was null and void due to antedating and connivance, and that the injunction was granted without notice or hearing.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Court of First Instance of Agusan committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing ex parte writs of preliminary injunction and attachment in Special Civil Case No. 182, and whether said case should be dismissed due to pendency of the prior action in Manila.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, treated as one for certiorari, and set aside the writs issued by the Agusan court. The date of filing of the petition in Agusan is reckoned as November 6, 1964, when the filing fee was paid, not October 24, 1964, when it was merely received. Therefore, the Manila case (filed October 28, 1964) preceded the Agusan case. Since both cases involved the same parties and cause of action, the Agusan court should have dismissed Special Civil Case No. 182 on the ground of litis pendentia, as a matter of comity and to prevent confusion in the administration of justice. Excellent Management, having received summons in the Manila case on November 3, 1964, filed its Agusan petition on November 6, 1964, resorting to the Agusan court with unclean hands and obtaining an ex parte preliminary injunction under dubious circumstances. The respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion and acted injudiciously. The Supreme Court directed the dismissal of Special Civil Case No. 182 and made permanent its own preliminary injunction. Costs were imposed on Excellent Management Corporation. A copy of the decision was ordered furnished to the Secretary of Justice regarding the alteration of court records.