G.R. No. L-7094; April 16, 1955
JUANITA MIRANDA, FILOMENA ALICDAN, LUISA OLIVEROS, LUCIANA EUGENIO, ILUMINADA ISLA, DIONISA SIDEÑO, CRISTETA RIVERA, ELISA MENDIOLA, SOCORRO FAJARDO, CONCHITA SAGUINSIN, VICENTE QUERI, VALENTIN SANTOS, EUGENIA QUERI, ISABEL VILLANUEVA, ENRIQUETA CRUZ, DOMINGO MACARIO and CLEMENTE, petitioners, vs. HON. JUDGE DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch I, ONG LIAN, NG PHO, CONRADO MACARO, and AMANDA JACINTO, respondents.

FACTS

In June 1953, respondents Ong Lian et al., fresh meat dealers with stores within 200 meters of the Arranque Market, filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Manila presided by respondent Judge Demetrio B. Encarnacion. They sought to compel the Mayor to issue them licenses to sell fresh meat, contending that Ordinance No. 3563, which prohibited the sale of fresh meat anywhere outside public markets, was null and void. They had been granted licenses in 1952 prior to the ordinance’s approval and applied for a preliminary mandatory injunction to require license renewal. The City Fiscal invoked Ordinance No. 3555 (which prohibited sales within 200 meters of a market boundary and was repealed by Ordinance No. 3563), arguing it should apply if Ordinance No. 3563 was void. Ong Lian et al. also argued Ordinance No. 3555 had no legal force. The respondent judge, advised that in another case (Co Kiam vs. City of Manila, Civil Case No. 19227) a different judge had declared Ordinance No. 3563 null and void, and believing Ordinance No. 3555 had ceased to operate, issued an order on June 18, 1953, requiring city officers to renew the respondents’ permits and licenses. Petitions for reconsideration failed. The petitioners, stallholders and sellers of fresh meat in the Arranque Market, then filed this certiorari action to nullify the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. This Court issued a preliminary injunction on December 7, 1953, to prevent enforcement of the respondent judge’s writ. Petitioners later informed the Court that the respondent judge had decided the case on the merits in favor of Ong Lian et al. and ordered execution pending appeal on February 4, 1954. Consequently, this Court issued a resolution on February 9, 1954, setting aside that order and directing the respondent judge to desist from executing the judgment. Subsequently, on February 28, 1955, in the appealed Co Kiam case, the Supreme Court upheld the validity and constitutionality of Ordinance No. 3563.

ISSUE

Whether the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction issued by the respondent judge, and the subsequent order for execution of judgment pending appeal in favor of Ong Lian et al., should be nullified in light of the Supreme Court’s final ruling upholding the validity of Ordinance No. 3563.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court made permanent and absolute its resolution of February 9, 1954, which had required the respondent judge to desist from executing his judgment. The Court’s ruling was based on its subsequent decision in Co Kiam vs. City of Manila, which upheld the validity and constitutionality of Ordinance No. 3563. Since this ordinance prohibits the sale of fresh meat anywhere outside public markets, respondents Ong Lian et al. may not be given licenses to sell fresh meat. Therefore, the orders of the respondent judge that would have allowed such sales were effectively nullified. Costs were awarded against the respondents, except the judge.