G.R. No. L-27057 August 21, 1974
HADJI DIAMBANGAN DEMARONSING, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE TEODULO C. TANDAYAG, as District Judge of the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Sur and DATU NATANGCOP INDOL, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Datu Natangcop Indol filed a complaint for recovery of possession of a parcel of land against petitioner Hadji Diambangan Demaronsing. The complaint included a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the petitioner from constructing a house on the disputed land during the pendency of the case. The respondent judge granted the writ. The petitioner, despite being notified of the hearing, claimed he was not afforded an opportunity to hire counsel before the injunction was issued. Subsequently, the petitioner filed multiple motions for the dissolution of the writ, all of which were denied by the lower court in a series of orders. The petitioner then filed the present certiorari proceeding, alleging denial of procedural due process and grave abuse of discretion by the respondent judge, particularly for maintaining the injunction after an amended complaint was filed.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing and maintaining the writ of preliminary injunction, thereby justifying the grant of the writ of certiorari.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. On the procedural due process claim, the Court found that the petitioner’s own petition acknowledged he was duly notified of the hearing and that four subsequent orders maintaining the injunction were issued after he had fully argued his side. The mere fact that he appeared without counsel and requested time to hire one did not constitute a denial of due process, as he was given the opportunity to be heard. On the allegation of grave abuse of discretion for not dissolving the injunction after an amended complaint, the Court ruled that an amendment to a complaint does not automatically nullify a previously issued preliminary injunction, especially when the amendment does not alter the core issue of possession which the injunction sought to preserve. The Court emphasized that certiorari under Rule 65 is a remedy for correcting errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the respondent judge acted capriciously or whimsically; the assailed orders were based on the need to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable injury pending litigation. The denial of the motions for dissolution was a proper exercise of judicial discretion. Since no jurisdictional error or grave abuse of discretion was shown, the extraordinary writ of certiorari could not be granted.