GR L 54012; (December, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-54012 December 15, 1982
Julito Zamora, Lydia Zamora and Ngo Kieng, petitioners, vs. Court of First Instance of Bulacan (Baliuag) Branch IV and Feliberto V. Castillo, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Feliberto Castillo filed a complaint for recovery of possession and administration of conjugal assets against his wife. The respondent court issued a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, ordering the surrender of properties, including those leased to petitioners Julito and Lydia Zamora and occupied by petitioner Ngo Kieng. Upon private respondent’s motion, the court ordered petitioners to appear for examination under oath regarding their occupancy. Petitioners failed to appear on the initial scheduled date, filing a motion to be exempted on the ground that the travel distance from their residence to the court was not less than fifty kilometers, which motion was denied.
The court ordered petitioners to appear on a new date, but they again failed to attend. Consequently, private respondent moved to declare them in contempt. The respondent court then issued the challenged order setting the contempt motion for hearing and a subpoena commanding petitioners’ appearance. Petitioners filed this special civil action, arguing they could not be compelled to testify outside their province of residence per the Rules and that the writ of injunction was unenforceable outside the court’s district.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order and subpoena to compel petitioners’ attendance.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, declaring the questioned order and subpoena without force and effect. The Court found that a resolution of the substantive legal issues raised—concerning the applicability of distance rules for witness attendance and the territorial enforceability of the writ—had been rendered superfluous. This was because, as claimed by petitioners and not denied by private respondent, the main civil case had already been submitted for decision. Consequently, there was no further practical necessity for the respondent court or the private respondent to insist on petitioners’ compulsory appearance for examination. The temporary restraining order was made permanent.