G.R. No. L-33884 April 25, 1978
ALFREDO DE LA CRUZ and DOMINGA SALIMAO, petitioners, vs. ROGELIO FEBREO, THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, HON. RAFAEL Q. GASTAYA, in his capacity as Municipal Judge of the Municipal Court of Kabankalan, and HON. CARLOS ABIERA, in his capacity as District Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Alfredo de la Cruz and Dominga Salimao initiated this certiorari and mandamus proceeding to challenge the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. The writ was issued by the Municipal Court of Kabankalan in a forcible entry case filed by private respondent Rogelio Febreo. Petitioners, as defendants in that case, alleged the writ was issued with indecent haste even before they received the urgent motion for its issuance. Four days after they filed their opposition, the municipal court issued another order directing the Provincial Sheriff to place Febreo in possession of the disputed lot. Petitioners claimed they had been in actual possession of the lot since 1938, rendering the writ devoid of legal basis.
Subsequently, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of First Instance (CFI) to nullify the writ. However, respondent Judge Carlos Abiera dismissed their petition via a summary order without conducting a hearing. The CFI order stated the municipal judge had not acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. A motion for reconsideration proved futile, prompting petitioners to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court. In their pleadings, petitioners emphasized that Febreo never denied their allegation of possession since 1938.

ISSUE

Whether the municipal court and the CFI committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing and upholding the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction without a hearing and in disregard of established doctrinal requirements for such writs.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling in favor of petitioners. The Court found a clear denial of procedural due process and a violation of the stringent doctrine governing preliminary mandatory injunctions. Respondent Judge Abiera dismissed the certiorari petition without a hearing, which constituted a patent denial of the opportunity to be heard. The respondent’s answer failed to refute this allegation, merely asserting a waiver by petitioners, which the Court found insufficient.
On the substantive issue, the Court reiterated the doctrine from Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company v. Del Rosario that a preliminary mandatory injunction, which alters the status quo, is viewed with disfavor and should only be issued in cases of extreme urgency where the right is very clear, free from doubt and dispute. The record showed petitioners had asserted continuous possession since 1938, a claim Febreo never specifically denied in his pleadings. This failure militated against any finding of a clear right in Febreo’s favor warranting the drastic remedy. The municipal court’s issuance of the writ, therefore, constituted grave abuse of discretion, which the CFI compounded by summarily dismissing the challenge without a hearing.
Consequently, the Supreme Court nullified the CFI order and the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. The Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the presiding judge of the CFI to grant petitioners’ certiorari petition and set aside the municipal court’s writ. Petitioners’ possession was ordered respected, pending the final outcome of the relevant administrative proceedings. Costs were imposed on private respondent Febreo.