G.R. No. L-26585 March 13, 1968
NATIONAL MARKETING CORPORATION (NAMARCO), JOVENAL D. ALMENDRAS, and SERAPIO DATOC, petitioners, vs. HON. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, in his capacity as DISTRICT JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA and VILTRA COMPANY AND/OR GERMAN E. VILLANUEVA, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent German E. Villanueva, doing business as VILTRA Company, filed a special civil action for mandamus with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and damages against petitioner National Marketing Corporation (NAMARCO) in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 64696). VILTRA alleged that on November 24, 1965, it entered into a contract with NAMARCO where VILTRA would open an irrevocable domestic letter of credit and NAMARCO would open an irrevocable foreign letter of credit to import 10,000 metric tons of wire rods from Japan. VILTRA claimed NAMARCO refused to open the foreign letter of credit, causing damages. On March 11, 1966, respondent Judge Gaudencio Cloribel granted VILTRA’s ex parte motion and issued a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction ordering NAMARCO to honor the contract and open the letter of credit. NAMARCO filed an answer denying the perfection of the contract, alleging VILTRA was not qualified for trade assistance per NAMARCO’s administrative order and that VILTRA itself failed to open the required domestic letter of credit. NAMARCO’s motion for reconsideration was denied on March 24, 1966. Subsequently, VILTRA moved to cite petitioners Jovenal D. Almendras (Acting General Manager) and Serapio Datoc (Assistant General Manager) of NAMARCO for contempt for failing to comply with the March 11 order. On March 29, 1966, the respondent judge found them guilty of contempt and ordered their arrest. Almendras and Datoc filed a notice of appeal and bond, but the respondent judge, in an order dated July 6, 1966, refused to give due course to the appeal because the notice did not specify the court to which the appeal was being taken. Their motion for reconsideration was denied on August 24, 1966, and the judge ordered the sheriff to enforce the prior orders. Another order dated September 16, 1966 directed the sheriff to take Almendras and Datoc into custody until they complied with the March 11 order. Petitioners then filed this action for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to annul these orders.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in: (1) issuing the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction in a mandamus action seeking to enforce a contractual obligation; and (2) subsequently issuing orders for contempt and refusing to give due course to the appeal from the contempt order.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court ruled that the special civil action for mandamus filed by VILTRA was improper because mandamus never lies to enforce the performance of contractual obligations; the remedy for breach of contract is an ordinary action for specific performance. Furthermore, the issuance of the preliminary mandatory injunction was a gross error. A mandatory injunction, which commands the performance of a specific act, is more serious than a prohibitive injunction and should be issued only in clear cases free from doubt and dispute, generally not before final hearing. In this case, VILTRA’s right was not clear and undisputed as NAMARCO denied the perfection of the contract and raised valid defenses. The writ effectively granted the main relief and amounted to an execution before a hearing on the merits. Consequently, the orders dated March 11, 24, 29, July 6, August 24, and September 16, 1966, were voided and set aside. Since the contempt order and subsequent implementing orders were annulled, the issue regarding the refusal to give due course to the appeal became moot, and the writ of mandamus prayed for by petitioners Almendras and Datoc was denied as unnecessary. Costs were imposed on respondent VILTRA.