G.R. No. L-29959-60 January 30, 1971
THE POLICE COMMISSION, represented by its Chairman, Crispino M. de Castro and Jose G. Lukban, Jolly Bugarin, and Vicente Raval, members, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE JUDGE ELOY B. BELLO, GENARO C. FERRER, and EMERANO BONIFACIO, respondents.

FACTS

Respondents Genaro C. Ferrer and Emerano Bonifacio, Chief of Police and Corporal of Binmaley, Pangasinan, were administratively charged. The local Board of Investigators recommended dropping the case with an admonition, finding the acts were honest mistakes. The Police Commission, however, reviewed the case and rendered a decision on August 2, 1967, finding them guilty of serious neglect of duty and ordering their dismissal. Their motions for reconsideration were denied. Subsequently, Ferrer and Bonifacio filed separate petitions for certiorari with preliminary mandatory injunction before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Pangasinan. They contended the Police Commission lacked jurisdiction because it had not yet published its Police Manual as required by law, and that it committed grave abuse of discretion.
Respondent Judge Eloy B. Bello issued ex parte orders directing the issuance of writs of preliminary mandatory injunction for the respondents’ immediate reinstatement, citing prima facie jurisdictional issues and potential irreparable injury. The Police Commission moved to dismiss and dissolve the writs, but the judge denied the motions and ordered reinstatement. When the Commission failed to comply, the judge issued a show-cause order for contempt. The Police Commission then filed this original action for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the ex parte writs of preliminary mandatory injunction and related orders.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari in part. It ruled that the respondent Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in issuing the ex parte writs of preliminary mandatory injunction. The Court reiterated the settled doctrine that a preliminary mandatory injunction, which commands the performance of a particular act, is a drastic remedy issued only in extreme urgency where the right is very clear and considerations of relative inconvenience strongly favor the complainant. The circumstances alleged by Ferrer and Bonifacio—primarily the jurisdictional challenge based on non-publication of the Police Manual and the potential difficulty in recovering back salaries—did not constitute the extreme urgency or very clear right necessary to justify such an extraordinary ex parte remedy. The orders for reinstatement were thus improvidently issued.
Furthermore, the Court clarified that the CFI of Pangasinan had no power to issue coercive writs like injunction against the Police Commission, which holds its office in Quezon City, as such writs are enforceable only within the court’s territorial jurisdiction. Consequently, the orders dated November 21, 1968 (directing the writs), the writs themselves issued on November 22, and the reinstatement orders of December 9 and 10, 1968, were declared null and void. The judge was permanently prohibited from enforcing the contempt order of December 14, 1968.
However, the Court denied the writ of prohibition seeking to stop the lower court from proceeding with the main certiorari cases. It held that while the lower court erred on the interlocutory injunctive relief, the petitions themselves alleged grave abuse of discretion by the Police Commission in dismissing the respondents. The Supreme Court found no showing that the CFI entirely lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the certiorari petitions. Therefore, to deprive Ferrer and Bonifacio of their day in court to prove their allegations on the merits would be improper. The temporary restraining order on the hearing of the main