G.R. No. 45224; September 17, 1936
MARIA D. CABUHAT, petitioner, vs. MARCELIANO R. MONTEMAYOR, Judge of First Instance of Manila, JOSE CASIMIRO, Sheriff of Manila, and the spouses CIRILO HIPOLITO and MARTINA TORRES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Maria D. Cabuhat filed two identical actions in the municipal court of Manila to recover a debt from respondent spouses Cirilo Hipolito and Martina Torres and to foreclose a mortgage on a piano and cash register. The first case was dismissed, and the judgment became final. The second case was dismissed on the ground of res judicata by both the municipal court and the Court of First Instance on appeal. After the petitioner appealed the second dismissal, the court ordered execution of the judgment unless she filed a P400 bond to secure compliance pending appeal. The petitioner initially filed a bond, but it was disapproved due to insufficient proof of the sureties’ solvency. After she failed to timely rectify this, the court ordered execution, and the sheriff delivered the piano to the respondents. The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari, challenging the court’s order requiring the bond as illegal and an abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the extraordinary remedy of certiorari to challenge the court’s order requiring her to file an additional bond to suspend execution pending appeal.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. The petitioner is estopped from questioning the order because she voluntarily complied with it by filing the additional bond. A party cannot repudiate their own acts by complying with an order and later challenging it. If she wished to contest the order, she should have sought certiorari immediately after her exception and applied for a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo. The Court did not rule on the alleged abuse of discretion, as the petitioner’s voluntary compliance barred the remedy. Costs were imposed on the petitioner.

AI Generated by Armztrong.