G.R. No. L-11584; April 28, 1958
MANUEL ARANETA and JOSE L. UY, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. COMMONWEALTH INSURANCE CO., ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Defendant Commonwealth Insurance Co. issued a surety bond with appellants Manuel Araneta and Jose L. Uy as principals in favor of De la Rama Steamship Co., Inc., to secure payment of freight charges. Appellants, along with Cathay Co. and Ang Lam and Sons Co., executed an indemnity agreement in favor of Commonwealth Insurance. Appellants failed to pay the freight balance, and Commonwealth Insurance paid P15,000 to the steamship company. The co-guarantors (Cathay Co. and Ang Lam and Sons Co.) reimbursed Commonwealth Insurance P12,000 on condition they would not be liable for the remaining P3,000 balance. Commonwealth Insurance then sued appellants for the P3,000 balance (Civil Case No. 12276). The court (Judge Bienvenido A. Tan) rendered judgment ordering appellants to pay Commonwealth Insurance P3,000 plus attorney’s fees. Appellants did not appeal this judgment but instead filed a certiorari action in the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed. The judgment became final and executory, and a writ of execution was issued. To restrain the execution, appellants filed the present complaint for injunction, alleging the decision in Civil Case No. 12276 was a nullity. The lower court (Judge Bonifacio Isip) dismissed the complaint on the ground of res judicata.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the complaint for injunction to restrain the execution of the final judgment in Civil Case No. 12276.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. First, a court has no power to interfere by injunction with the judgments or decrees of a coordinate court, as the branches of the Court of First Instance of Manila are coordinate courts. Second, appellants’ claim of nullity was based on an alleged error by Judge Tan in ordering them to pay the P3,000 despite Commonwealth Insurance’s release of the co-guarantors, invoking Article 2078 of the Civil Code. This alleged error was an error of judgment, not an error of jurisdiction. Since the court had jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter, such an error, if committed, did not render the decision void but was correctible only by appeal. Appellants did not appeal, making the judgment final and binding. Therefore, the present complaint was barred by res judicata. The appeal was dismissed with costs against appellants.