Case Digest (G.R. No. L-4600)
Facts:
Pedro Babala, petitioner, v. Hon. Maximino Abano, et al., G.R. No. L-4600, February 28, 1952, the Supreme Court En Banc, Paras, C.J., writing for the Court.
On January 26, 1951, Patricio Canela filed an information for grave coercion in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte against petitioner Pedro Babala arising from a dispute over a market stall. On the same day Canela also instituted a civil action for damages in the same court based on the same facts and in that civil suit prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. Petitioner Babala insisted in the civil proceedings that the pending criminal case should have precedence and thus that the civil case (including the preliminary-injunction matter) be suspended.
The Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte issued an order dated February 6, 1951 categorically suspending the trial of the civil action on the merits until after disposition of the criminal case, but expressly permitting the trial court to proceed with the hearing on the petition for preliminary mandatory injunction. Petitioner sought relief from the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside that order, arguing that the pendency of the criminal prosecution suspended the civil action in its entirety, including any hearing on preliminary or ancillary remedies.
The Supreme Court reviewed the matter via the petition for certiorari and prohibition. Relying on earlier precedent, the Court dismissed the petition with costs; it did not consider a separate contention by respondents that the certiorari petition lacked proper ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does the pendency of a criminal prosecution suspend a civil action so as to bar the trial court from issuing or hearing preliminary and auxiliary writs (e.g., preliminary injunction)?
- Was the petition for certiorari and prohibition defective for lac...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)