G.R. No. L-6530; March 31, 1955
ILDEFONSA CORONADO, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE BIENVENIDO A. TAN, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, CATALINA ESTEBAN and PELAGIO VICTORINO, respondents.

FACTS

1. Catalina Esteban was the lessee and operator of the Makati-Jolo Ferry for the fiscal year July 1, 1951 to June 30, 1952.
2. On September 15, 1952, the municipality advertised for bids for the operation of the ferry for the next fiscal year (October 1, 1952 to September 30, 1953).
3. Ildefonsa Coronado submitted the highest bid. The mayor executed a lease contract with her, which was ratified and approved by the municipal council on October 19, 1952.
4. Coronado operated the ferry from that time until January 26, 1953.
5. On January 22, 1953, Catalina Esteban, assisted by her husband Pelagio Victorino, filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against Coronado and the municipal officials. She alleged that Coronado’s lease contract was illegal and void, claimed her own contract was subsisting, and prayed for a preliminary injunction to stop the enforcement of Coronado’s contract.
6. The respondent judge, Bienvenido A. Tan, issued a preliminary writ of injunction on January 26, 1953, and amended it on January 27, 1953, to allow Esteban to operate the ferry service during the pendency of the case.
7. Coronado’s motion for reconsideration failed, prompting her to file this petition for certiorari to annul the judge’s orders and for mandamus to regain possession of the ferry.
8. A key issue was a special stipulation in Coronado’s contract, not in the original bid notice, allowing her to charge double rates from 7:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. The municipal council ratified the contract, noting this was a prevailing custom. However, the mayor and Coronado were later convicted of falsification of a public document for this insertion, a case pending appeal.
9. The respondent judge issued the mandatory injunction based on two propositions: (a) the falsification rendered Coronado’s contract null and void, and (b) Esteban had a valid lease contract that must be enforced.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing the preliminary mandatory injunction that dispossessed petitioner Coronado of the ferry operation and placed respondent Esteban in possession.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion. The issuance of the preliminary mandatory injunction was improper.
1. The legal propositions supporting the injunction were debatable and should be decided after a full hearing on the merits.
a. On the nullity of Coronado’s contract due to falsification: The defense in the criminal case argued the insertion reflected a well-known practice and was approved by the council, which could negate criminal intent. Even assuming falsification, it was arguable that only the additional stipulation might be void, not the entire contract.
b. On the validity of Esteban’s contract: Her lease expressly covered only 1951-1952. Her claim of a mayoral renewal was undermined by her participation in the public bidding, and the mayor lacked authority to grant such an extension unilaterally.
2. The injunction violated established doctrines:
a. An injunction is generally improper when it aims to take property from one person and give it to another whose title has not been clearly established.
b. A mandatory injunction, which alters the status quo, is generally improper before a final hearing except in cases of extreme urgency or where the right is very clear. Neither condition was present here.
The Court granted the petition for certiorari, annulled the challenged orders, and ordered costs against respondents Esteban and Victorino.