G.R. No. 46174 ; November 29, 1938
PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

In a prior case (Civil Case No. 45149), the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a decision making permanent a preliminary injunction that restrained defendant Fernando Enriquez from picking up or dropping passengers outside his authorized routes. The decision also ordered both parties to comply with the terms of a 1929 agreement (Exhibit 1). This agreement stipulated, among other things, that Enriquez would withdraw his application to operate in the territory served by Pampanga Bus Company and would not present any such application in the future. In 1937, Enriquez filed an application with the Public Service Commission (Case No. 48802) to lift the restrictions on his certificates of public convenience. Pampanga Bus Company filed a complaint for contempt in the same prior case, alleging that this application violated the permanent injunction and the 1929 agreement. The trial court found Enriquez guilty of contempt and ordered him to withdraw his application or face imprisonment.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in finding defendant-appellant Fernando Enriquez guilty of contempt for violating the permanent injunction, which ordered compliance with the 1929 agreement, by filing an application to lift restrictions on his certificates.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the appealed decision. The 1929 agreement, wherein Enriquez bound himself not to apply for the lifting of restrictions on his certificates, is illegal and void. It constitutes a waiver against public interest of a right granted by law and is not binding on the Public Service Commission. Consequently, the permanent writ of injunction issued to enforce this illegal agreement is itself illegal and void. A finding of contempt for violating a void injunction is likewise illegal and void.

AI Generated by Armztrong.