GR L 1284; (May, 1947) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1284; May 27, 1947
FEDERAL FILMS, INC., petitioner, vs. BUENAVENTURA OCAMPO, Judge of First Instance of Manila, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
This is an original action for prohibition filed by Federal Films, Inc. The petitioner seeks to have the respondent Judge, Buenaventura Ocampo, ordered to recall a writ of execution he issued on January 9, 1947, in Civil Case No. 73256 (Pablo Roman vs. Federal Films, Inc.), and to have the provincial sheriff of Rizal desist from carrying it out. The basis for the petition is that the execution was ordered while a separate certiorari proceeding (G.R. No. L-1260) was pending before the Supreme Court. That certiorari case challenged an order by Judge Jose Gutierrez David dated December 17, 1946, which had dismissed the petitioner’s appeal in the same civil case. The petitioner contends that the respondent judge gravely abused his discretion by ordering execution before the final resolution of the certiorari action.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion or whimsically exercised his judgment in ordering the execution of the judgment in Civil Case No. 73256 while the petitioner’s certiorari action (G.R. No. L-1260) challenging the dismissal of its appeal was still pending.
RULING
The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition for prohibition. The petitioner’s contention was found to be without merit for two reasons. First, the Court had already dismissed the related certiorari proceeding (G.R. No. L-1260). Second, although the petitioner could have sought and potentially obtained a preliminary injunction in the certiorari case to preserve the rights of the parties (under Section 7, Rule 67), no such remedy was ever requested or granted. In the absence of any restraining order from the Supreme Court, the respondent judge was fully authorized to issue the writ of execution. Costs were imposed against the petitioner.
SEPARATE OPINION:
Justice Perfecto DISSENTED. He argued that the writ of prohibition should be granted. His view was that the execution was ordered based on the false premise that the judgment had become final and executory due to a late appeal. He referenced his opinion in the related case (G.R. No. L-1260), where he concluded that the appeal was perfected on time and that its dismissal violated the rules. Therefore, he voted to set aside the execution order and prohibit the lower court from executing the judgment.