Facts:

• Restituto M. Sibal is the petitioner, while Gregorio T. Lantin, as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch VII, and spouses Lorenzo and Inocencia Valdez are the respondents.
• On September 5, 1955, a "Contract of Transfer of Management" was executed between Valleson, Inc. (represented by Lorenzo Valdez) and Sibal, with Mariano Guison, owner of the Angela Building, also involved.
• Sibal was granted management rights for seven years in exchange for a monthly payment of P2,000, with complete operational freedom and obligation to honor existing contracts.
• A lease agreement between Sibal and Guison for the space occupied by Valleson was established, lasting until September 1962.
• A second lease contract was executed on March 1, 1962, for ten years starting September 2, 1962, at a monthly rental of P4,000.
• Sibal attempted to evict former concessionaires of Valleson, claiming they were his sublessees.
• On September 4, 1962, Valleson filed Civil Case No. 51476 against Guison and Sibal, seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent interference with their possession.
• Judge Lantin issued a preliminary injunction in favor of Valleson on the same day.
• Sibal filed unlawful detainer cases against former sublessees, prompting Valleson to move for contempt against him, which Judge Lantin denied.
• The sublessees filed CFI Case No. 52866 against Judge Cornejo and Sibal, claiming Judge Cornejo acted without jurisdiction.
• On January 31, 1963, Judge Lantin authorized a preliminary injunction against Judge Cornejo, leading Sibal to seek a writ of certiorari and/or prohibition to annul this order.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The Supreme Court ruled affirmatively, stating that Judge Lantin acted with grave abuse of discretion, constituting excess of jurisdiction, and declared ...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The Court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Rules of Court, particularly Section 3 of Rule 58, which outlines the grounds for issuing a preliminary injunction.
• One prerequisite for granting such relief is that the plaintiff must be entitled to the relief demanded.
• In CFI Case No. 52866, the relief sought was a writ of certiorari and/or prohibition against Judge Cornejo, asserting he acted with...continue reading