Facts:

This case involves Vicente G. Acaban as the petitioner and Judge Wenceslao M. Ortega, along with B & B Forest Development Corporation, as the respondents. The legal proceedings began on January 30, 1970, when the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila, Branch VIII, rendered a judgment in Civil Case No. 75138, where Acaban, as the plaintiff, was awarded various sums against the defendants, including B & B Forest Development Corporation, for failure to settle a debt. The judgment specified that the defendants were jointly and severally liable for the total amount of P24,910.41, which included capital, interest, additional cash advances, attorney’s fees, and court costs.

Following the decision, Acaban filed a motion to garnish the bank deposits of B & B with China Banking Corporation, which was granted by the respondent judge. This prompted B & B to file a complaint in the same court (Civil Case No. 86246) on February 21, 1972, seeking to annul the earlier judgment

...

Facts:

Case Background and Procedural History

• The petitioner, Vicente G. Acaban, filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus seeking:
• The annulment of an order issued by the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch VIII, presided over by Judge Wenceslao M. Ortega.
• An order directing the sheriff to proceed with garnishing the bank deposit of B & B Forest Development Corporation (B & B).
• The petition challenged an order that granted a writ of injunction restraining the enforcement of a writ of execution based on a previous judgment.

Civil Case No. 75138

• Decision and Orders Rendered:
• On January 30, 1970, the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch VIII issued a decision in Civil Case No. 75138 in favor of petitioner Acaban.
• The judgment ordered the defendants—including Bautista Logging Co., Inc., B & B Forest Development Corporation, and Mariano A. Bautista—to pay Acaban:
• The principal amount of P24,910.41 with 12% per annum interest.
• Additional sums including a cash advance of P300.00 with 6% per annum interest.
• Attorney’s fees amounting to P6,300.00 and the costs of the suit.
• Execution Proceedings:
• Acaban filed a motion seeking the garnishment of B & B’s bank deposit with China Banking Corporation.
• Acting on the motion, Judge Ortega ordered the bank’s cashier, Tan Lim Lion, to verify if B & B had any deposits and to hold the funds intact until further court directive.

Civil Case No. 86246 and Related Motions

• Initiation of Case by B & B:
• On February 21, 1972, B & B filed Civil Case No. 86246 seeking annulment of the Civil Case No. 75138 judgment on grounds of:
• Lack of jurisdiction.
• Denial of due process due to alleged non-service of summons.
• Concurrently, a writ of preliminary injunction was issued, restraining the execution of the judgment in Civil Case No. 75138.
• Subsequent Decisions and Appeals:
• On March 6, 1974, the respondent judge dismissed the annulment complaint.
• The decision affirmed the judgment in Civil Case No. 75138 as valid, legal, binding, final, and executory.
• The dismissal also imposed attorney’s fees and costs on B & B.
• Conflicting Motions and Injunction Order:
• Prior to the perfection of the appeal from the dismissal in Civil Case No. 86246:
• Acaban filed a "Motion to Order Sheriff to Proceed with the Garnishment."
• B & B filed an "Urgent Motion to Restore or Grant Injunction Pending Appeal."
• On March 27, 1974, Judge Ortega issued the questioned order, granting the writ of injunction that restrained the execution of Civil Case No. 75138’s judgment.

Issues Raised by the Petitioner

• The petitioner challenged the injunction order on the following grounds:
• Arguing that a judgment debtor (B & B) should not be entitled to secure an affidavit through injunctive relief to block the execution of a final judgment.
• Contending that Judge Ortega gravely abused his discretion by denying the motion to order the sheriff to proceed with garnishment.

Mootness of the Petition

• B & B filed an appeal from the decision in Civil Case No. 86246.
• The Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed the decision on July 20, 1979.
• The finality of the appeal rendered the petition for certiorari and mandamus moot and academic, leading to its dismissal.

Issue:

Entitlement to Injunctive Relief

• Is a judgment debtor, such as B & B Forest Development Corporation, entitled to an injunctive writ that blocks the execution of a final, binding judgment?

Alleged Abuse of Judicial Discretion

• Did Judge Ortega gravely abuse his discretion by denying Acaban’s "Motion to Order Sheriff to Proceed with the Garnishment"?

Mootness of the Petition

• With the affirmation of the Civil Case No. 86246 decision by the Court of Appeals, do the issues raised become moot and academic?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)