Farrales vs. Fuentecilla

Facts:

Epifanio Farrales v. Antonio Fuentecilla, G.R. No. L-6354. June 26, 1954, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bautista Angelo, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Epifanio Farrales sued for forcible entry before the Justice of the Peace Court of San Narciso, Zambales, naming Quirino Dumlao and others as defendants. On February 26, 1952 Farrales moved for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction under Article 539 of the New Civil Code, which the Justice of the Peace granted after notice and hearing; the ex officio provincial sheriff, Jesus Amon, placed Farrales in possession of the lands.

The main action was heard on May 3, 6 and 8, 1952, but further proceedings were discontinued because the Justice of the Peace, Antonio Fuentecilla, rarely came to his office or ceased acting in San Narciso. About five months after the last hearing, on September 29, 1952 the Justice of the Peace issued an order dissolving the preliminary mandatory injunction he had earlier granted (the injunction dated March 25, 1952 according to the record). Petitioner challenged that dissolution as illegal and filed a petition for certiorari in this Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the ground that the order was issued without notice and hearing.

Respondent Justice of the Peace denied abuse and explained that he acted under the rules of court considering the great damage that continued possession would cause defendants and because defendants had posted a counterbond sufficient to compensate petitioner. The Supreme Court reviewed the issue under Rule 60, Section 6 of the Rules of Court and examined prior jurisprudence bearing on whether a court may dissolve a preliminary injunction without prior notice or hearing. The Court also noted that complaints about irregularities in the performance of judicial duties could be raised before the supervising j...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Did the Justice of the Peace commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by dissolving the preliminary mandatory injunction without prior notice and hearing?
• If not, was certiorari the proper forum to pursue alleged irregularities in the Justice of the Peace’s performa...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)