G.R. No. L‑5760 (December 24, 1909)

FACTS
1. The plaintiffs (Martin Ocampo et al.) were defendants in a criminal libel case pending before the Supreme Court (U.S. v. Ocampo, Kalaw, Reyes) arising from an editorial titled “Aves de Rapiña” published in El Renacimiento.
2. While the criminal case was pending, Dean C. Worcester filed a civil action in the Manila Court of First Instance seeking damages for the same editorial.
3. The plaintiffs moved the Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition (pre‑liminary injunction) to stop the lower court from trying the civil case until the criminal case was finally resolved.

ISSUE
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a writ of prohibition (pre‑liminary injunction) to restrain the trial court from proceeding with the civil suit, i.e., whether the civil action is barred by the pending criminal action under the principle of res judicata and the provisions of Act No. 277 of the Philippine Commission.

RULING
The Court held that:

– Act No. 277 expressly creates two distinct causes of actiona criminal prosecution by the State and an independent civil action for damages by any person libeled.
– The civil and criminal actions, although based on the same alleged libel, involve different parties, different questions, and separate remedies; thus res judicata does not apply.
– The provisions of the Penal Code on res judicata are inapplicable to offenses created by the Philippine Commission statutes.
– Consequently, the plaintiffs failed to show that the circumstances warrant an extraordinary equitable remedy.

The petition for a preliminary injunction (writ of prohibition) was DENIED.

Concurrence: Justices Torres, Carson, Moreland, and Elliott.