G.R. No. L-9098; March 20, 1914
JOSE M. GONZALEZ, plaintiff, vs. PERCY M. MOIR, Judge of First Instance, defendant.

FACTS:
On April 8, 1912, the respondent Judge rendered two judgments against the plaintiff, Jose M. Gonzalez. One was a judgment in a mortgage suit in favor of Ezequiel Ruiz (declared a preferred credit and appealed to the Supreme Court), and the other was a judgment for debt in favor of Cecilio Imaz. The judgment in favor of Imaz became final, and execution was issued. The property in question was sold at a sheriff’s sale, subject to Ruiz’s mortgage credit, and was purchased by Imaz. Subsequently, on July 8, 1913, upon the ex parte petition of Imaz, the respondent Judge issued an order appointing a receiver for the property and a preliminary injunction restraining Gonzalez from entering it. Gonzalez, without first seeking the annulment or modification of these orders in the court that issued them, filed an original action for certiorari in the Supreme Court to have the orders vacated.

ISSUE:
Whether the petitioner, before filing an original action for certiorari in the Supreme Court to annul ex parte orders of a lower court, must first seek relief from the issuing court.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. It held that the better practice, especially when the orders complained of were issued ex parte, is for the aggrieved party to first apply to the Court of First Instance for the dissolution or modification of the order. This gives that court an opportunity to correct its own supposed error after full argument. The Court cited the case of Herrera vs. Barretto and Joaquin (25 Phil. Rep., 245), which discourages summarily taking questions from Courts of First Instance to the Supreme Court without first allowing them a chance to rule on the matter. Strong reasons of policy, courtesy, and orderly procedure require such a step. Since Gonzalez failed to first invoke the judgment of the respondent Judge, his petition was dismissed, with costs against him.