Facts:

The case involves A. S. Watson & Co., Limited as the plaintiff and Rafael Enriquez, among others, as defendants. The legal controversy arose from a petition for a preliminary injunction sought by the plaintiff, which was initially granted at the commencement of the action before the lower court. The case was tried, and in September 1902, a final judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants, resulting in the dissolution of the temporary injunction that had been previously granted to the plaintiff. Subsequently, on September 20, 1902, the plaintiff perfected a bill of exceptions, which was signed by the presiding judge and a certified copy was forwarded to the appellate court. Following this, the plaintiff filed a motion requesting the continuation of the preliminary injunction pending appeal. The main legal consideration in this motion was whether the filing of the bill of exceptions effectively kept the preliminary injunction in force despite its dissolution by the lower

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• The plaintiffs, A. S. Watson & Co., Limited, initially obtained a preliminary injunction as prayed for in their complaint.
• The injunction was granted by a lower court to preserve the status quo pending the resolution of the action.

Proceedings and Subsequent Developments

• The action was fully tried and, in September 1902, a final judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants, Rafael Enriquez et al.
• With the final judgment, the earlier temporary (preliminary) injunction was officially dissolved.
• On September 20, 1902, a bill of exceptions was perfected by the trial judge, signed, and then transmitted to the appellate court.

Legal Provisions and Precedents Cited

• Article 144 of the Law of Civil Procedure:
• Provides that the filing of a bill of exceptions automatically stays execution until the final determination of the action under certain prescribed conditions.
• Article 1007 of the Revised Statutes of the United States:
• Outlines the procedure for obtaining a supersedeas, understood as a suspension of the power of the lower court to execute the judgment.
• Hovey vs. McDonald (109 U. S. 150) is referenced for its definition of “supersedeas.”
• U.S. Supreme Court Precedents Referenced:
• Hovey vs. McDonald confirmed that neither the issuance nor the dissolution of an injunction is automatically disturbed by an appeal.
• Slaughterhouse Cases (10 Wall., 273-297) and Leonard vs. Ozark Land Company (115 U. S., 465-468) reinforced that the operative effect of an injunction remains undisturbed during an appeal.
• Knox Co. vs. Harshman (132 U. S., 14) established that an injunction once dissolved cannot be revived solely by an appeal.

Consideration of Equity and Judicial Power

• The case discusses the notion that while the filing of a supersedeas bond in federal practice does not revive a dissolved injunction, the underlying decree’s effect may only be suspended by an affirmative order from either the trial or appellate court when justice demands.
• A contrasting perspective was presented from Minnesota’s courts where:
• An appeal from an order dissolving an injunction was held to continue the injunction in force.
• Judge Mitchell, in dissent, cautioned that such an outcome would produce unjust and inequitable results.
• The Philippine court noted that there is no appeal from orders granting or dissolving preliminary injunctions in the Islands; hence, consequentially, the use of supersedeas to revive a dissolved injunction would be unjust.

Statutory Authority and Journal of Precedents

• Article 163 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
• Authorizes a judge of the Supreme Court to grant a preliminary injunction in any action pending before it, including those on a bill of exceptions or appeal.
• This broad language underpins the court’s inherent power to maintain status quo only when justice requires it.
• Previous decisions, such as Maximo Cortes vs. Palanca Yutivo (1902), have established the principles guiding the court’s discretion in such matters.

Issue:

Whether the filing of a bill of exceptions (or an appeal accompanied by a supersedeas bond) automatically revives or continues the effect of a preliminary injunction that was dissolved by a final judgment.

• Can an appellant’s exercise of the supersedeas procedure in the appellate forum serve to temporarily reinstate the injunction despite the trial court’s decision to dissolve it?

The extent of the lower court’s power to order the continuance of the status quo pending the final resolution by the appellate court.

• Is the judge below empowered to maintain the injunction in force even if the evidence from a full trial indicates that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief?
• What are the implications for equity when the proper suspension of execution is in question?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)