G.R. No. L-29905 December 24, 1968
N. M. BALUYOT & CO., petitioner, vs. ANTONIO TY, HON. FELIX DOMINGO, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XV, and UNION TEXTILE CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner N. M. Baluyot & Co. alleges that respondent Antonio Ty and Union Textile Corporation (UTC) had a one-year sole buyership agreement expiring April 1968. Both Ty and petitioner submitted new contract proposals to UTC, with UTC’s Board accepting petitioner’s offer on May 14, 1968. On June 4, 1968, Ty filed Civil Case No. 73189 before Judge Jose Leuterio, who issued a restraining order preventing UTC from entering into a sole buyership contract with any party other than Ty. Petitioner intervened and opposed the injunction. Despite Ty presenting no evidence and petitioner presenting documentary evidence at the June 19 hearing, Judge Leuterio issued a preliminary injunction upon a P30,000 bond. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 41449-R), which on July 3, 1968, issued a restraining order and later a preliminary injunction against enforcing Judge Leuterio’s order. After receiving notice of the CA’s restraining order, Ty filed a new action (Civil Case No. 73530) for specific performance and damages before respondent Judge Felix Domingo on July 6, 1968, covering the same subject matter. Judge Domingo issued a restraining order on July 9, 1968, without bond, preventing UTC from selling and delivering its stocks to third parties other than Ty. Petitioner was allowed to intervene and opposed the writ of preliminary injunction. The hearing for the preliminary injunction was repeatedly postponed upon motions by Ty and once by UTC, from July 13 to August 6, to August 22, to August 26, and finally to October 7, 1968. On October 5, 1968, Judge Domingo granted another postponement and set the hearing on the petition for preliminary injunction simultaneously with the trial on the merits.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should grant the petition for certiorari, prohibition, and/or mandamus to annul the orders of respondent Judge Felix Domingo for alleged arbitrariness and grave abuse of discretion.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition without prejudice to filing it with the Court of Appeals. The Court found that the facts alleged showed arbitrariness and grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent Judge Domingo. The restraining order issued without bond circumvented and nullified the preliminary injunction issued by the Court of Appeals in a related case involving the same parties and subject matter. The repeated and unjustified postponements of the hearing on the preliminary injunction petition, culminating in setting it simultaneously with the trial on the merits, were intended to delay its resolution and allow the prejudicial effects of the restraining order to continue indefinitely. However, under the recent amendments to the Judiciary Act, the writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus prayed for are in aid of the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over the main case (Civil Case No. 73530) pending before respondent Judge. While the Supreme Court also has original jurisdiction to entertain such special civil actions, as the Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction is not exclusive, the consistent policy is to require that such petitions be filed first with the Court of Appeals, with the Supreme Court reserving the power to review final judgments or orders from the latter.