Facts:

The case involves Agno River Gold Dredging Co., Inc. (petitioner) and Dionisio de Leon, Judge of the First Instance of Pangasinan, along with Agno Placer Mining Co. (respondents). The events leading to this case began when Agno Placer Mining Co. filed civil case No. 6886 in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, asserting ownership of 66 individual mining claims covering 520 hectares in the municipalities of San Manuel, San Nicolas, Tayug, and Santa Maria, Pangasinan. The plaintiff claimed to have filed declarations of location for these mining claims on several dates in 1933, which were duly registered. The petitioner, Agno River Gold Dredging Co., Inc., countered that it had rights adverse to those claimed by the plaintiff and had been exercising possession and ownership over the same mining claims through its employees and agents. The plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the petitioner from interfering with its possession and enjoyment of the claims, re...

Facts:

1. Parties Involved:

   • Petitioner: Agno River Gold Dredging Co., Inc.
   • Respondents: Dionisio de Leon (Judge of First Instance of Pangasinan) and Agno Placer Mining Co.

2. Background of the Case:

   • The respondent, Agno Placer Mining Co., filed a civil case (No. 6886) in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, claiming ownership and possession of 66 mining claims covering 520 hectares in Pangasinan.
   • The respondent alleged that the petitioner, Agno River Gold Dredging Co., Inc., was performing acts of possession and ownership over the same mining claims, which were adverse to the respondent's interests.

3. Respondent's Allegations:

   • The respondent claimed to have filed declarations of location for the mining claims and registered them with the mining recorder.
   • The respondent sought a preliminary injunction to restrain the petitioner from performing acts of possession or ownership over the mining claims.

4. Petitioner's Defense:

   • The petitioner opposed the issuance of the preliminary injunction, claiming ownership and possession of 26 mining claims covering 64 hectares adjacent to the respondent's claims.
   • The petitioner argued that it had complied with mining laws and that its actions were within the boundaries of its own claims.

5. Evidence Presented:

   • During the hearing, the respondent presented evidence, including testimony from its engineer, Eusebio M. Agonias, who stated that he found the petitioner's laborers panning gold on the respondent's claims in April 1934.
   • The petitioner's general manager, Mr. Federle, claimed that the mining claims belonged to the petitioner and that stakes had been placed as early as 1915 or 1916.

6. Court's Initial Ruling:

   • The respondent judge granted the preliminary injunction, requiring the respondent to post a bond of P30,000, which was approved, and the writ was issued.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Discretionary Power of Courts:

   • The issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is a discretionary power of the courts, aimed at protecting the existing rights of a party pending the resolution of the main case.
   • The court's discretion is limited only by the requirement that the writ be issued in accordance with the law.

2. Evidence Supporting the Writ:

   • The evidence presented during the hearing, including the testimony of the respondent's engineer and the petitioner's general manager, prima facie supported the respondent's claim of peaceful possession and the petitioner's interference.
   • The Court found no abuse of discretion in the respondent judge's decision to issue the writ based on this evidence.

3. Distinction from Previous Case:

   • The Court distinguished this case from Wagan and Garcia vs. Sideco and Natividad, where the petitioner was in possession of the land. In this case, the evidence supported the respondent's claim of possession, justifying the issuance of the preliminary injunction.

4. Finality of the Ruling:

   • The Court emphasized that its decision did not prejudge the merits of the main case but merely upheld the respondent judge's exercise of discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari, affirming the respondent judge's issuance of the preliminary injunction. The Court found no abuse of discretion, as the evidence presented during the hearing supported the respondent's claim of peaceful possession and the petitioner's interference. The writ of preliminary injunction was deemed justified to protect the respondent's rights pending the final resolution of the case.