G.R. No. L-27260 April 29, 1968
NATIONAL MARKETING CORPORATION (NAMARCO), JOVENAL D. ALMENDRAS and SERAPIO J. DATOC, petitioners, vs. HON. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, in his capacity as District Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila and GERMAN E. VILLANUEVA, doing business under the name and style of VILTRA COMPANY, respondents.

FACTS

German E. Villanueva (VILTRA) filed a special civil action for mandamus with preliminary injunction and damages against the National Marketing Corporation (NAMARCO) in the Court of First Instance of Manila, presided by Judge Gaudencio Cloribel. VILTRA alleged that on November 24, 1965, it entered into a written contract with NAMARCO where VILTRA would open an irrevocable domestic letter of credit, and NAMARCO would open an irrevocable foreign letter of credit to suppliers in Japan for 10,000 metric tons of wire rods. VILTRA claimed NAMARCO refused to open the foreign letter of credit, causing damages. The respondent judge issued a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction ordering NAMARCO to comply with the contract. NAMARCO’s officers, Jovenal D. Almendras and Serapio J. Datoc, were cited for contempt for non-compliance and were ordered arrested. Their appeal from the contempt order was dismissed by the judge. Subsequently, VILTRA filed an amended complaint, changing the action from mandamus to an ordinary civil action for specific performance and damages. The respondent judge admitted this amended complaint. NAMARCO filed its answer to the amended complaint, but VILTRA filed a motion for summary judgment and a motion to strike out NAMARCO’s answer. The judge granted both motions, struck out NAMARCO’s answer, and rendered a partial decision ordering NAMARCO to comply with its obligations under the contract. The judge also granted VILTRA’s motion for execution pending appeal and issued a writ of execution. NAMARCO filed a notice of appeal, but the judge postponed its consideration and ordered the issuance of a second writ of execution.

ISSUE

1. Whether it was proper for the respondent judge to admit the second amended complaint that changed the original special civil action for mandamus into an ordinary civil action for specific performance.
2. Whether it was regular and proper for the respondent judge to render a partial summary judgment ordering specific performance.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the writs of certiorari and prohibition and made the preliminary injunction permanent.
1. The admission of the amended complaint was improper. The Court held that the original action for mandamus was clearly untenable because the writ of mandamus cannot be used to enforce contractual obligations under a disputed contract. The Court had previously held in a related case (G.R. No. L-26585) that the issuance of the preliminary mandatory injunction was unwarranted. The amended pleading was intended to correct VILTRA’s error in instituting a mandamus action to enforce contractual obligations.
2. The rendition of the partial summary judgment was irregular and void. In its answers to both the first and second amended complaints, NAMARCO duly raised the illegality, unenforceability, and lack of perfection of the alleged contract on legal and factual grounds. Therefore, there were genuine issues of fact precluding a summary judgment. The partial decision was intended to replace the unwarranted preliminary mandatory injunction. Consequently, the writs of execution issued for its enforcement were likewise irregular and void. Costs were awarded against the respondents.