G.R. No. L-69437. May 31, 1985.
VICE MAYOR SIEGFREDO D. OBIAS, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. MELECIO B. BORJA, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Naga City, and EDGARDO I. BRAVANTE alias “Eddie Imperial,” respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Edgardo I. Bravante, using the alias “Eddie Imperial,” was appointed by the President to fill a vacancy in the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Naga City. Petitioners, the Vice Mayor and members of the Sanggunian, refused to recognize and seat him. Bravante filed a mandamus and damages case before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) presided by respondent Judge Melecio B. Borja, seeking to compel his recognition. The RTC issued a restraining order and later a writ of preliminary injunction, ordering petitioners not to exclude Bravante from performing his functions.
Petitioners challenged the RTC’s orders via certiorari in the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC), arguing grave abuse of discretion. The IAC denied the petition on procedural grounds. Subsequently, as Bravante attempted to attend sessions but was again excluded, he filed a motion for contempt. Respondent Judge found all petitioners guilty of contempt, imposing jail terms and fines, and ordered them to accept Bravante within fifteen days or face arrest.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in convicting petitioners of contempt of court.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the contempt conviction, and made permanent the temporary restraining order against its enforcement. The Court ruled that respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction, which effectively granted the principal relief sought in the mandamus case even before resolving substantial legal questions. These unresolved issues included: (1) whether a vacancy actually existed in the Sanggunian given conflicting provisions between the Naga City Charter and the Local Government Code; (2) the validity of an appointment bearing an alias and not the appointee’s true name; and (3) the implications of a pending criminal case against Bravante for using an alias without judicial authority.
By issuing the injunction and subsequently punishing petitioners for contempt for non-compliance, the judge pre-empted the resolution of these material issues on the merits. While an appeal was available, it was not a speedy and adequate remedy under the circumstances, especially given the immediate threat of imprisonment and the patent abuse of discretion. The contempt power cannot be used to enforce an order issued with such abuse. The Court found it unnecessary to rule on the other ancillary issues raised by the parties.