GR L 20783; (August, 1963) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20783; August 31, 1963
EMILIANO M. PEREZ, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, LUIS P. REYES, AMANDA REYES and SHERIFF OF MANILA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Emiliano M. Perez leased a portion of a building and subleased part of it to R.A. Reyes & Company, a partnership of the Reyes brothers. The brothers were later substituted in the case by their parents, respondents Luis P. and Amanda Reyes. Perez filed an ejectment case against them in the Municipal Court of Manila, which ruled in his favor, ordering the respondents to vacate and pay rents. Respondents appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila. The CFI, however, ordered execution of the judgment pending appeal because respondents failed to file a supersedeas bond and to pay accruing rents into court, despite their claim of making rental payments directly to the building owner.
Respondents then filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, challenging the CFI’s order of execution as a grave abuse of discretion. Notably, the sheriff had already placed Perez in possession of the premises. The Court of Appeals, after hearing, issued a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to restore possession to the respondents pending its resolution of the certiorari petition. Perez elevated this matter to the Supreme Court via the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition, seeking to annul the appellate court’s resolution granting the preliminary mandatory injunction.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should review and annul the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction issued by the Court of Appeals.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The legal logic is grounded on procedural mootness and the implications of a related, final disposition. While this petition (L-20783) assailed the preliminary mandatory injunction, the Court of Appeals had subsequently rendered a decision in the main certiorari case, making that injunction permanent and annulling the CFI’s order of execution. Perez separately challenged that final decision in another Supreme Court case, G.R. No. L-20937, which was dismissed for lack of a special and important reason for review.
Consequently, the issue in the instant petition became academic. The preliminary injunction sought to be reviewed had been superseded by a permanent one, and the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the petition in L-20937, which questioned that final injunction, constituted an implied resolution against Perez’s position. The Court clarified that its dismissal of L-20937 did not affirm the appellate court’s factual or legal conclusions on the underlying ejectment merits, which remained for the CFI to decide on appeal. It merely signified no grounds to interfere with the Court of Appeals’ discretionary act to restore the status quo pending the CFI’s final judgment. Thus, the petition was dismissed and the preliminary injunction issued by the Supreme Court was dissolved.