Case Digest (G.R. No. 8692)
Facts:
Godofredo B. Herrera v. Alberto Barretto and Constancio Joaquin, G.R. No. 8692, September 10, 1913, the Supreme Court En Banc, Moreland, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Godofredo B. Herrera, sued in his official capacity as Municipal President of Caloocan, sought a writ of certiorari directed to Alberto Barretto, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, and Constancio Joaquin, the plaintiff below.On about March 1, 1913 Joaquin filed a verified complaint in the Court of First Instance against Herrera seeking mandamus to compel Herrera to issue a license to open and operate a cockpit in the Caloocan barrios of Loma and Maypajo. The complaint also asked the court to issue a mandatory injunction (a provisional license) to allow Joaquin to operate pending final determination. Judge Barretto granted that mandatory injunction ex parte on the facts and exhibits before him.
Herrera then filed the present application for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court, alleging that Judge Barretto acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. Herrera's specific contentions were that (1) cockpit licenses for Loma and Maypajo were within the municipal council's power (citing paragraph (j), sec. 40, of the Municipal Code and municipal ordinance No. 8), not the municipal president's; (2) the injunction was issued ex parte without giving him an opportunity to be heard in violation of section 202 of the Code of Civil Procedure; (3) any previously issued license in favor of Joaquin had been annulled by a municipal council ordinance approved by the provincial board; and (4–5) other pending civil actions (civil causes Nos. 8673 and 986) involving substantially the same ordinance or subject matter rendered the injunction beyond the court's power. Herrera also asserted Joaquin then lacked any valid license.
The Supreme Court considered whether certiorari was the proper remedy by determining if the Court of First Instance had acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. After reviewing prior Philippi...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of First Instance act without or in excess of jurisdiction when it issued a mandatory injunction (provisional license) in the mandamus action?
- Did specific procedural defects alleged by Herrera — namely that the injunction was issued ex parte in violation of section 202, that the municipal president lacked authority to issue the license, and that other proceedings/annulments existed — amount to a want of...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)