GR L 16695; (August, 1920) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-16695; August 24, 1920
SALVADOR CAMPOS Y CIA., petitioner, vs. SIMPLICIO DEL ROSARIO, Judge of the First Instance of Manila, RICARDO SUMMERS, clerk of court, and CAYETANO TUASON, respondents.
FACTS:
1. An action for forcible entry and detainer was filed by Cayetano Tuason against Salvador Campos y Cia. in the justice of the peace court of Manila.
2. The justice of the peace rendered judgment ordering Salvador Campos y Cia. to deliver possession of the property to Tuason and to pay P200 per month.
3. Salvador Campos y Cia. appealed to the Court of First Instance. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant, as required by law, deposited with the court the monthly rental of P200.
4. Tuason filed a motion in the Court of First Instance praying that all deposited money be paid to him. The respondent judge granted the motion and ordered the clerk of court to pay the deposits to Tuason.
5. Salvador Campos y Cia. filed the present petition for certiorari, seeking to annul the judge’s order, arguing it was issued without jurisdiction and contrary to law.
ISSUE:
Whether the respondent judge acted in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the payment to Tuason of the rental deposits made during the pendency of the appeal, thereby justifying the remedy of certiorari.
RULING:
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition for certiorari.
2. This statutory provision is mandatory. The judge has no discretion to order the release of the deposits to any party before the final disposition of the appeal.
3. While the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction over the appealed ejectment case, it acted in excess of its jurisdiction or without authority in granting an auxiliary remedy (the release of the deposits) that directly contravenes a positive legal mandate.
4. Certiorari is the proper remedy to correct such an act, as it involves a tribunal acting without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
5. Consequently, the order of the respondent judge directing the clerk to deliver the deposited money to Tuason was ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE. Costs were adjudged against respondent Tuason.
6. In a subsequent motion for reconsideration, Tuason’s plea to be relieved from paying costs was denied, as the relevant statutes (Act No. 1159) provide that costs in such proceedings are to be awarded against the party in interest.