G.R. No. L-6770; August 31, 1954
HONORABLE MARCIANO ROQUE, ETC., petitioners, vs. PABLO DELGADO, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

On September 6, 1952, the Acting Executive Secretary ordered the closure of the “Bagong Sabungan” cockpit in barrio Calios, Sta. Cruz, Laguna, for being within 500 meters of a Seventh Day Adventist Church, violating Executive Order No. 318, series of 1941. On November 21, 1952, Pablo Delgado, Eugenio Zamora, and Pio Manalo filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition (Civil Case No. 9616) in the Court of First Instance of Laguna against Acting Executive Secretary Marciano Roque, Provincial Governor M. Chipeco, and Municipal Secretary Patricio Rebeque, seeking a preliminary injunction to restrain the closure order. Judge Nicasio Yatco issued the writ on November 22, 1952. On March 6, 1953, the court dismissed the petition and dissolved the injunction. On April 23, 1953, the petitioners filed a motion under Rule 39, section 4, of the Rules of Court, praying for the restoration of the preliminary injunction pending their appeal. On June 1, 1953, Judge Yatco granted the motion and reinstated the writ, citing the provision, the case’s importance, and the tense situation between the parties. The Acting Executive Secretary’s motion for reconsideration was denied on June 11, 1953. On June 26, 1953, Acting Executive Secretary Marciano Roque, through the First Assistant Solicitor General, filed the present petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction in the Supreme Court against Delgado, Zamora, Manalo, and Judge Yatco, seeking annulment of the June 1, 1953 order.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess or lack of jurisdiction in issuing the order of June 1, 1953, restoring the writ of preliminary injunction during the pendency of the appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court held that the respondent Judge did not act with grave abuse of discretion. Under Rule 39, section 4, the trial court has discretion to restore an injunction during the pendency of an appeal. Although the provision speaks of an appeal being taken, the period during which an appeal may be perfected is not materially different, as the judgment is not final in both instances. Authority exists that a trial court may restore a preliminary injunction in anticipation of an appeal. The Court rejected the argument that the closure of the cockpit on May 24 and 31, 1953, rendered the order moot, noting that the petition for restoration was filed on April 23, 1953, and any closure was without prejudice to the court’s action on that petition. The Court also found no inconsistency in the Judge’s decision, as the discretion to restore was based on the facts, circumstances, and tense situation of the parties, with new facts considered at the hearing. The allegation of lack of notice was deemed immaterial since a motion for reconsideration was filed. Additionally, the petition was dismissible on the technical ground that petitioner Marciano Roque had ceased to hold office and no substitution was made under Rule 3, section 18, of the Rules of Court.