Facts:

The case concerns a petition for certiorari and prohibition with a preliminary injunction filed by Jesus Aguirre against Hon. Higinio B. Macadaeg, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, the Sheriff of Manila, and Leonora & Company. The incident originated from two connected cases involving the National Shipyards and Steel Corporation (NASSCO). In 1954, NASSCO sought to procure a second-hand belted steel tank with a capacity of 210,000 gallons via public bidding. Leonora & Company submitted the lowest bid of P14,500 and subsequently bought the tank from Zosimo Gabriel on December 5, 1954. However, Aguirre had previously purchased the same tank from Vicente Aldaba and Teresa Aldaba for P900, prior to Gabriel's acquisition. When Aguirre attempted to reclaim possession of the tank, municipal authorities in Los Baños, where the tank was located, prevented him from taking it, leading to Gabriel's second sale to Leonora & Company, who restored the tank and

...

Facts:

Parties and Nature of the Case

• Jesus Aguirre is the petitioner challenging the actions of several respondents:
• Hon. Higinio B. Macadaeg, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila;
• The Sheriff of Manila; and
• Leonora & Company.
• Aguirre filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with a preliminary injunction, contesting decisions of the lower court and subsequent proceedings in related civil cases.

Underlying Transactions and Conflicting Sales

• The National Shipyards and Steel Corporation (NASSCO) advertised for the purchase of a secondhand belted steel tank having a capacity of 210,000 gallons, to be acquired through public bidding.
• Leonora & Company became the lowest bidder at P14,500 and was awarded the bid.
• The tank’s chain of transactions involved multiple sales:
• Zosimo Gabriel sold the tank to Leonora & Company after purchasing it from Vicente Aldaba and Teresa Aldaba on December 2, 1954;
• Prior to these transactions, Jesus Aguirre had already bought the very same tank from the Aldabas for P900.
• Aguirre’s attempt to take possession of the tank was thwarted by claims made by the Bureau of Public Works and the municipal authorities in Los Banos, thereby complicating ownership issues.

Subsequent Legal Proceedings and Lower Court Decisions

• Jesus Aguirre filed formal notice to NASSCO asserting his prior claim of ownership and demanded that payment for the tank be suspended until the matter was resolved.
• Aguirre initiated a legal action (Civil Case No. 24914) against Leonora & Company and the Aldabas, seeking delivery of the tank and damages.
• The lower court’s decision in Civil Case No. 24914 declared Aguirre the absolute owner of the tank, voided the subsequent sales (from Aldaba to Gabriel, Gabriel to Leonora & Company, and Leonora’s sale to NASSCO), and ordered the defendants to deliver the tank to Aguirre.
• A related case (Civil Case No. 27988), initiated by Leonora & Company for the recovery of funds paid to purchase and refurbish the tank, incorporated a stipulation of facts which Aguirre joined as an intervenor.
• The Court rendered a decision in Civil Case No. 27988 that reaffirmed Aguirre’s ownership while also addressing Leonora & Company’s costs for improvements, setting conditional orders for delivery or payment based on the state of the tank.

The Issue with the Writ of Execution and Appeal

• In Civil Case No. 27988, after Aguirre perfected his appeal by ensuring the record on appeal was forwarded to the Court of Appeals, Leonora & Company filed a motion for execution of the judgment.
• The trial court subsequently issued a writ of execution on April 23, 1957, even though the record on appeal had already been approved and forwarded, raising jurisdictional issues.
• Aguirre contended that since the appeal had been perfected, the trial court had lost jurisdiction to issue a writ of execution, and that the writ was thus issued either without or in excess of jurisdiction.

Relief Sought and Judicial Intervention

• Based on the improper issuance of the writ of execution, Aguirre sought relief through his petition for certiorari and prohibition, asserting the lower court’s lack of authority once the record on appeal was forwarded.
• The legal controversy centered on whether the trial court’s action was valid under the Rules of Court, specifically under Section 2 of Rule 39 regarding the issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal.

Issue:

Jurisdiction of the Trial Court

• Whether the trial court retained jurisdiction to issue a writ of execution after the record on appeal had already been approved and forwarded to the Court of Appeals.
• Whether the issuance of the writ of execution on April 23, 1957, violated the mandatory provisions of Section 2 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

Impact of the Timing of the Appeal and Issuance

• Whether the trial court’s issuance of the writ of execution, even though executed after the perfection of the appeal, affected the finality of the lower court’s decision in favor of Aguirre.
• Whether the subsequent motion for execution by Leonora & Company and the approval of that motion were binding given that the appellate process was already underway.

Effect of the Issuance on Subsequent Equity and Legal Relief

• Whether the issuance of the writ of execution should be set aside to preserve the essence of Aguirre’s prior favorable ruling and the integrity of the appellate process.
• Whether the permanent preliminary injunction should be maintained in light of the jurisdictional error.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)