Case Digest (G.R. No. L-17934)
Facts:
The case involves the Allied Free Workers' Union (PLUM) as the petitioner and Hon. Judge Manuel Estipona, among others, as respondents. The events leading to this case began on November 5, 1960, when the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte rendered a decision in Civil Case No. 577. This decision declared the arrastre contract between the plaintiff, Compania Maritima, and the defendant, Allied Free Workers' Union, terminated and of no force and effect as of August 31, 1954. The court ordered the defendants to pay damages amounting to P520,000.00 to the plaintiff and issued a perpetual injunction against the union and its members from enforcing the contract or harassing the plaintiff. The court also mandated that if the defendant union appealed, it must post a supersedeas bond of P520,000.00 to stay the execution of the judgment.
Following the decision, the defendants filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the ruling was contrary to law and evidence, ...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-17934)
Facts:
Background of the Case:
- On November 5, 1960, the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte rendered a decision in Civil Case No. 577, declaring the arrastre contract between Compania Maritima and Allied Free Workers' Union (PLUM) terminated as of August 31, 1954.
- The court ordered the union to pay P520,000.00 in damages and issued a permanent injunction against the union from enforcing the contract or harassing Compania Maritima.
- The court also required the union to post a supersedeas bond of P520,000.00 to stay the execution of the judgment in case of an appeal.
Motion for Reconsideration:
- The union filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the decision was contrary to law and evidence, and that the court lacked jurisdiction because two labor disputes involving the same parties and issues were pending before the Court of Industrial Relations.
Motion for Execution:
- On December 21, 1960, Compania Maritima filed an urgent motion for a writ of execution, claiming that delay in execution would cause irreparable damage to its business.
- The union opposed the motion, arguing that it was premature since the motion for reconsideration was still pending, and execution would prejudice the rights of union members involved in the pending labor disputes.
Municipal Court's Involvement:
- Due to the absence of the district judge, Compania Maritima submitted the motion for execution to the Municipal Court of Iligan City.
- On January 6, 1961, the municipal judge granted the motion for execution regarding the permanent injunction, citing Section 2 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended.
Union's Response:
- The union filed a motion for reconsideration, challenging the municipal court's jurisdiction, but it was denied.
- The union then filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Issue:
- Whether the municipal judge had jurisdiction to issue the order of execution, given that the order was final in character and not merely interlocutory.
- Whether the order of execution complied with the requirements of Section 2 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that special reasons must be stated to justify the issuance of an execution order before the expiration of the time to appeal.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)