G.R. No. L-3063; August 30, 1949
MACARIO QUINTERO and RAMON GUZMAN, petitioners, vs. FELIX MARTINEZ, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, THE SHERIFF OF THE CITY OF MANILA, and PIO D. LIWANAG, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Macario Quintero and Ramon Guzman filed a civil case (No. 7359) in the Court of First Instance of Manila against respondents Pio D. Liwanag and the Sheriff of Manila. They sought to annul a final judgment of the Municipal Court of Manila (in civil case No. 4217) on the ground of fraud, falsification, and collusion. As part of their complaint, they also requested a preliminary prohibitory injunction to restrain the sheriff from executing that municipal court judgment. The respondent judge denied the issuance of the preliminary injunction. Petitioners then filed this special action for mandamus to compel the judge to issue the preliminary injunction.

ISSUE

Whether a writ of mandamus lies to compel a judge to issue a preliminary injunction.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The issuance of a preliminary injunction is a discretionary judicial function, not a ministerial duty. A writ of mandamus can only compel the performance of a ministerial act specifically enjoined by law, not control judicial discretion. The respondent judge did not act contrary to law or with grave abuse of discretion in denying the injunction. The complaint’s third cause of action (for injunction) was insufficient because it sought to restrain the execution of a presumptively valid judgment. Until the judgment is annulled in the main action, its execution cannot be enjoined merely by filing a separate injunction suit against the sheriff, as this would allow judgment debtors to unduly delay execution. The preliminary injunction issued by the Supreme Court in this mandamus proceeding was consequently set aside.

AI Generated by Armztrong.