GR L 56761; (November, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-56761 November 19, 1982
MARIANO TOLEDO and ELENA TOLEDO, petitioners, vs. HON. JUDGE BERNARDO P. PARDO, Court of First Instance of Caloocan, Branch XXXIV and JUN LOPEZ, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Mariano and Elena Toledo filed an ejectment suit against their tenant, respondent Jun Lopez, in the City Court of Caloocan, alleging they needed the leased premises for their son. The City Court rendered judgment in favor of the Toledos and issued a writ of execution. Lopez, instead of vacating, filed a Petition for Certiorari in the Court of First Instance (CFI), presided by respondent Judge Bernardo Pardo, assailing the City Court’s jurisdiction. Lopez argued the ejectment complaint was filed prematurely, as the demand letter was sent on March 27, 1979, and the complaint was filed on May 16, 1979, violating the three-month advance notice requirement under Batas Pambansa Blg. 25.
Respondent Judge Pardo issued a restraining order and subsequently a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the execution of the City Court’s judgment. The Toledos filed motions for reconsideration, which were denied. They then filed this Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition, arguing the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion by entertaining an untimely certiorari petition, reversing factual findings, and enjoining a final and executory judgment.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the execution of the City Court’s judgment in the ejectment case.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent Judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the jurisdictional nature of the three-month notice requirement under BP 25. The petitioners themselves admitted that compliance with this requirement is jurisdictional. The respondent Judge, in his assailed order, found that based on the allegations in the Toledos’ own complaint, the demand was sent on March 27, 1979, and the ejectment case was filed on May 16, 1979, before the lapse of the three-month period. This premature filing allegedly deprived the City Court of jurisdiction.
The Court held that the certiorari petition before the CFI was not filed out of time, as Lopez had actively pursued remedies, including a motion for new trial, before filing it. The respondent Judge did not reverse factual findings but relied on the admissions in the pleadings. Most importantly, the finality of the City Court’s judgment is no bar to injunctive relief if the judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction. A writ of certiorari can be pursued to annul a void judgment even after it becomes final, and a preliminary injunction may properly issue to prevent the enforcement of a potentially null and void decision. Therefore, the Petition was dismissed.