G.R. No. L-56587 August 31, 1981
BENJAMIN Y. GOLEZ, et al. vs. HON. TOMAS LEONIDAS, et al.

FACTS

Petitioner Benjamin Y. Golez filed an ejectment case against respondent Vicente V. Aldaba before the City Court of Manila, presided by petitioner Judge Gerino M. Tolentino. The court rendered a decision by default against Aldaba on September 25, 1978. Aldaba subsequently filed a petition for relief from judgment with the Court of First Instance (CFI), presided by respondent Judge Tomas Leonides, who issued a writ of preliminary injunction to stay the execution of the ejectment decision. On February 8, 1979, after hearing, respondent Judge Leonides dismissed the petition for relief upon finding its allegations untrue.
Following the dismissal, petitioner Golez moved for execution pending appeal in the ejectment case, which petitioner Judge Tolentino granted on February 12, 1979. The ejectment judgment was executed accordingly. After this execution, Aldaba filed a petition for contempt in the same dismissed relief case (Civil Case No. 119568) against petitioners Golez, his counsel Aralar, Judge Tolentino, and the sheriff, arguing that the February 8 order of dismissal had not yet become final. Respondent Judge Leonides denied the motions to dismiss the contempt petition filed by petitioners Golez and Aralar.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Leonides acted with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the contempt petition against the petitioners for implementing the writ of execution after the dismissal of the main petition for relief.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is clear: when respondent Judge Leonides dismissed the petition for relief from judgment, such dismissal necessarily carried with it the lifting of the writ of preliminary injunction he had issued. A preliminary injunction is interlocutory and ancillary in character; it is automatically dissolved upon the dismissal of the main case, regardless of whether the period for filing a motion for reconsideration or an appeal has expired. Consequently, upon the dismissal on February 8, 1979, there was no longer any injunction order in effect to prohibit the execution of the ejectment judgment.
The execution was lawfully implemented. The writ of execution was issued on February 20, 1979, before Aldaba filed his motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order on February 21, 1979. The implementation followed legal formalities, including a proper notice to vacate and provisions for a police presence during enforcement. Therefore, petitioners were merely enforcing a valid writ after the ancillary injunction had ceased to exist. The contempt proceedings had no legal basis, as the acts complained of were justified under a final and executory judgment. The Supreme Court set aside the contested orders and directed respondent judge to desist from further proceedings in the contempt petition.