G.R. No. L-29864 February 28, 1969
CHAMBER OF FILIPINO RETAILERS, INC., NATIONAL MARKET VENDORS ASSOCIATION INC., AMBROSIO ILAO, CRISPIN DE GUZMAN, JOSE J. LAPID, and FELICISIMO LAS, petitioners, vs. HON. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS as City Mayor of Manila, The CITY TREASURER and The CITY OF MANILA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s December 3, 1968 resolution dismissing their action for prohibition. Previously, petitioners had filed a case (Civil Case No. 73902) in the Court of First Instance of Manila to question the validity of Ordinance No. 6696 (later superseded by Ordinance No. 6767) which increased rental fees for stalls in Manila’s public markets. The lower court initially issued a restraining order but later lifted it and rendered a judgment on November 3, 1968, dismissing the case and declaring the ordinance valid. Petitioners perfected an appeal to the Supreme Court from that judgment (G.R. No. L-29819). After the restraining order was lifted, respondents demanded payment of back differentials and new rental rates, threatening summary ejectment for non-payment. Petitioners then filed the present action for prohibition to restrain the collection and possible ejectment.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court correctly dismissed the petitioners’ action for prohibition.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration and reiterated the dismissal of the action for prohibition. The Court held that the relief sought by petitioners could be properly secured from the lower court in accordance with Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, or from the Supreme Court in the appealed case (G.R. No. L-29819). The Court noted that petitioners had already filed a motion in G.R. No. L-29819 to reinstate the restraining order or issue a preliminary injunction pending appeal, which was denied. Therefore, the present action was an attempt to secure the same relief already denied, making the remedy of prohibition improper.