GR L 45412; (April, 1939) (Digest)
March 9, 2026GR L 45400; (April, 1939) (Digest)
March 9, 2026G.R. No. 45261; July 21, 1936
SY YAM BIO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. CONRADO BARRIOS and MARIANO BUYSON LAMPA, Judges of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners filed a complaint seeking to declare an Iloilo municipal ordinance illegal and unconstitutional. They obtained an ex parte preliminary injunction from respondent Judge Conrado Barrios, suspending the ordinance’s enforcement against their commercial establishment. During a subsequent hearing, petitioners’ counsel requested a postponement. The provincial fiscal, representing the defendants, opposed the postponement and argued that if it were granted, the preliminary injunction should be dissolved because it was issued without supporting evidence and was prejudicial to public interest. Judge Barrios granted the postponement but dissolved the preliminary injunction. A motion for reconsideration was later denied by respondent Judge Mariano Buyson Lampa. Petitioners filed this certiorari petition, alleging the judges exceeded their jurisdiction and abused their discretion in dissolving the injunction without a formal written application as allegedly required by law.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction or abused his discretion in dissolving the ex parte preliminary injunction based on an indirect verbal application made during the hearing.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition. Section 169 of Act No. 190 (the Code of Civil Procedure) does not prescribe a specific form for an application to dissolve a preliminary injunction; it only requires reasonable notice to the adverse party. The provincial fiscal’s verbal opposition, which conditioned the grant of postponement on the dissolution of the injunction, constituted substantial compliance with the statutory requirement. The petitioners’ counsel was present and heard the application. Since the court heard both parties and the petitioners failed to present evidence justifying the injunction’s continuance, the respondent judge, acting within his jurisdiction over the case and its incidents, did not exceed his jurisdiction or abuse his discretion in granting the dissolution.
AI Generated by Armztrong.