G.R. No. L-30404 August 30, 1973
MIGUEL PEREZ RUBIO, petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE HERMINIO MARIANO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch X, of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, ROBERT O. PHILLIPS & SONS, INC., ROBERT O. PHILLIPS, MAGDALENA YSMAEL PHILLIPS, VICTORIA VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, MANUFACTURERS BANK & TRUST COMPANY and HACIENDA BIENITO, INC., respondents.

FACTS

This is a resolution on motions for reconsideration of the Court’s January 31, 1973 decision. The original petition involved a certiorari proceeding where petitioner Miguel Perez Rubio challenged the trial court’s refusal to admit his amended and supplemental answer and third-party complaint in Civil Case No. 8632. The Court’s prior decision set aside the trial court’s order and directed the admission of these pleadings, while also issuing a restraining order against the transfer of shares or assets of Hacienda Benito, Inc.
Respondent Manufacturers Bank & Trust Company (MBTC) and the other private respondents separately moved for reconsideration. MBTC primarily argues that the petition for certiorari was an improper remedy, as appeal should have been taken from the trial court’s order. It further contends that the third-party complaint improperly seeks to annul a final judgment in a separate foreclosure case (Civil Case No. 8766) rendered by another branch of the same court, which cannot be collaterally attacked. The other movants echo the procedural challenge, arguing the petition was untimely and that certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal.

ISSUE

The primary issue for resolution is whether the motions for reconsideration present sufficient grounds to reverse or modify the Court’s prior decision, particularly concerning the propriety of the certiorari remedy and the scope of the restraining order.

RULING

The Court denied the motions for reconsideration but modified the effect of the restraining order. On the procedural challenges, the Court found no compelling reason to reverse its prior ruling. It held that the circumstances of the case, including the need to avoid multiplicity of suits and to fully ventilate the petitioner’s claims on the merits, justified treating the petition for certiorari as an exception to the general rule that it cannot substitute for an appeal. The respondents’ denials of the petitioner’s allegations are best resolved in a full trial on the merits.
However, the Court agreed with MBTC’s contention regarding the restraining order. It found merit in MBTC’s argument that an indefinite restraining order without a bond was improper, as it could impair the bank’s liquidity by freezing assets acquired through foreclosure. The Court ruled that the trial court (Branch X, CFI Rizal) is the proper forum to determine whether an injunction should continue during the pendency of Civil Case No. 8632. Consequently, the Court modified its decision by ordering that the existing restraining order shall remain in effect only for thirty (30) days after the judgment becomes final and is remanded to the lower court. After this period, the order is automatically lifted, without prejudice to the petitioner filing a proper petition for a preliminary injunction with the trial court, upon posting a bond to be fixed by that court.