FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-13316. December 11, 1917. ]
L. J. MADARANG ET AL., Petitioners, v. FRANCISCO SANTA MARIA, judge of first instance of Ilocos Sur, and DIONISIO ABAYA ET AL., Respondents.
The petitioners in their own behalf.
No appearance for Respondents.
SYLLABUS
1. JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT TO GRANT AN INJUNCTION AS AN INDEPENDENT REMEDY. — The Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands does not have original jurisdiction, in an action brought for the purpose, to grant an injunction. A petition for a preliminary injunction will therefore be denied by the Supreme Court unless the same is an auxiliary remedy to some other action.
D E C I S I O N
JOHNSON, J.:
This was an original action commenced in the Supreme Court. It was entitled "United States, Petitioner, v. The Court of First Instance Et. Al., Respondents." It was a civil action and should not have been entitled as thus indicated. From a reading of the petition, however, it appears that it was an action by the said Madarang Et. Al. v. The Judge of the Court of First Instance Et. Al. It was an original action for the writ of injunction. The prayer was, first, for a preliminary injunction, and second, for a perpetual injunction. The prayer of the petition is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"For the aforementioned considerations, the petitioner prays that this Supreme Court issue a writ of preliminary injunction against the respondents and that after the necessary legal proceedings it render decision against them, issuing a perpetual injunction for the dame purpose, and staying the respondents from disturbing the rights and properties involved in these proceedings, sentencing them besides to pay the amount of P40,000 as damages, and the costs of these proceedings."cralaw virtua1aw library
We have frequently held, in accordance with the provisions of section 17 of Act No. 136, that the Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction, in an action brought for that purpose, to grant a remedy by injunction. Said section provides that the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, habeas corpus, and quo warranto. No provision is made for the granting of the writ of injunction as an original action in the Supreme Court.
An application for a preliminary injunction will be denied by the Supreme Court unless the same is petitioned for in connection with some other remedy or in an action actually pending in that court. (Diokno v. Reyes, 7 Phil. Rep., 385; Garcia Gavieres v. Robinson, 8 Phil. Rep., 332; International Banking Corporation v. De Leon, R. G. No. 2843, Nov. 15, 1905, not published.)
For the foregoing reasons, therefore, the petition is hereby denied, with costs. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Carson, Araullo, Street, Malcolm, and Avanceña JJ. concur.
"For the aforementioned considerations, the petitioner prays that this Supreme Court issue a writ of preliminary injunction against the respondents and that after the necessary legal proceedings it render decision against them, issuing a perpetual injunction for the dame purpose, and staying the respondents from disturbing the rights and properties involved in these proceedings, sentencing them besides to pay the amount of P40,000 as damages, and the costs of these proceedings."cralaw virtua1aw library
We have frequently held, in accordance with the provisions of section 17 of Act No. 136, that the Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction, in an action brought for that purpose, to grant a remedy by injunction. Said section provides that the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, habeas corpus, and quo warranto. No provision is made for the granting of the writ of injunction as an original action in the Supreme Court.
An application for a preliminary injunction will be denied by the Supreme Court unless the same is petitioned for in connection with some other remedy or in an action actually pending in that court. (Diokno v. Reyes, 7 Phil. Rep., 385; Garcia Gavieres v. Robinson, 8 Phil. Rep., 332; International Banking Corporation v. De Leon, R. G. No. 2843, Nov. 15, 1905, not published.)
For the foregoing reasons, therefore, the petition is hereby denied, with costs. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Carson, Araullo, Street, Malcolm, and Avanceña JJ. concur.
