JUAN YSASI, petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE F. FERNANDEZ, as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental (Bacolod City, Branch V), MARIA ALDECOA DE YSASI and JON YSASI, respondents.
FACTS
This is a sequel to a prior judgment of the Supreme Court. On June 25, 1968, the Court granted Juan Ysasi’s petition for certiorari, striking down orders of respondent Judge Jose F. Fernandez and directing him to issue a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction ordering respondents Maria Aldecoa de Ysasi (the wife) and Jon Ysasi (the son) to turn over to petitioner Juan Ysasi (the husband) the possession and control of Hacienda Manucao-A and other conjugal properties. The Court’s decision was based on the husband’s statutory right to administer conjugal properties under Article 165 of the Civil Code, absent proof of abuse of administration. The judgment became final on July 23, 1968. On August 5, 1968, respondent judge issued the mandated writ. However, private respondents refused to comply. On August 7, 1968, they moved to dissolve the injunction, and on August 10, 1968, respondent judge lifted the injunction upon private respondents’ filing of a counterbond of P60,000, invoking Section 6, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner Juan Ysasi filed urgent motions with the Supreme Court to overturn the dissolution order and to cite respondents for contempt for disobeying the Court’s mandate and the lower court’s August 5 order.
ISSUE
1. Whether petitioner’s urgent motions before the Supreme Court to compel obedience to its mandate and for contempt are the proper remedy, or whether a separate proceeding is required.
2. Whether respondent judge had the authority to dissolve, upon a counterbond, the preliminary mandatory injunction which the Supreme Court had ordered him to issue.
3. Whether private respondents and respondent judge should be held in contempt.
RULING
1. On the Propriety of the Remedy: The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner’s urgent motions are properly before the Court in the same proceedings. The Court’s decree directing the issuance of the injunction is a continuing mandate. Enforcement of the Court’s order is part and parcel of the certiorari proceedings, and the Court retains control to ensure its orders are obeyed. A separate proceeding is unnecessary and would foster multiplicity of suits.
2. On the Authority to Dissolve the Injunction: The Supreme Court ruled that respondent judge had no authority to dissolve the injunction. The dissolution, based on the same grounds previously rejected by the Supreme Court (potential damage to respondents and risk of evidence destruction), was a nullity as it contravened the Court’s final and executory judgment. The husband’s right to administer conjugal property under Article 165 of the Civil Code is a substantive right that cannot be defeated by the mere filing of a counterbond by the wife; deprivation requires proof of abuse of administration under Article 167. The dissolution order was set aside.
3. On the Contempt Charges:
* Against Private Respondents: The Supreme Court found Maria Aldecoa de Ysasi and Jon Ysasi guilty of contempt for their willful disobedience and obstruction of the lawful orders of the Supreme Court and the lower court. They were each sentenced to pay a fine of P1,000 and were directed to promptly comply with the preliminary mandatory injunction.
* Against Respondent Judge: The Supreme Court found that Judge Jose F. Fernandez committed an act in derogation of the Court’s dignity by dissolving the injunction, which effectively negated the Court’s final judgment. The Court issued a stern warning that further similar acts would be dealt with accordingly.
The Court ordered the respondent judge’s August 10, 1968 order set aside and directed private respondents to immediately turn over the properties to petitioner.
