100 Phil. 970
[ G. R. No. L-8331. February 28, 1957 ]
LOURDES A. BORBON, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. CRESENCIA MANARANG, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, A., J.:
Pending consideration of the petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, the main case was called for hearing in the Court of First Instance on August 26, 1953. On that day, the plaintiffs appeared and presented their evidence; but when defendant’s turn to present her evidence came, her counsel asked for a continuance, saying that he could not locate his .client. The continuance was granted add hearing was set for September 8, but on this latter date defendant came to courtwith another lawyer and again asked for a continuance, alleging that her attorney ofrecord was sick. With the warning that it was to be the last postponement, the courtreset the hearing for the next day, September 9. When that day came, her counselappeared and asked for the suspension of the hearing, alleging that the defendant hadfiled with the Court of Appeals a supplemental petition for the issuance of a writ ofpreliminary injunction to enjoin the trial judge from trying the case and that thesaid Court of Appeals had issued said writ, a copy of which was said to beforthcoming. But as no such preliminary writ of injunction could be shown, the courtdenied the motion and proceeded with the disposal of the case, rendering a decisionconfirmatory of that rendered by the municipal court. It is that decision that is nowbefore us on appeal, and appellant says in her brief that she assigns “only oneerror,” which is that “The lower court erred in proceeding with the trial of the casedespite the injunction order of the Honorable Court of Appeals.”
The appeal is clearly without merit. The contention that the decision appealed from is illegal and void because it was rendered despite the restraining order issued by the Court of Appeals is without basis, because what appears is that when the appealeddecision was rendered no restraining order had yet been actually issued against the Court of First Instance because of defendant’s failure to file the required bond on time, and in the circumstances there was no legal impediment to the trial courtproceeding with the disposition of the case. It may be inferred from the decision of the Court of Appeals attached to appellees’ brief as Appendix “A”, that such restraining order was later issued on September 11, but such order cannot, of course, retroact to a prior date and render null and void the decision previously rendered by the lower court.
The other points raised by the appellant being foreign to her lone assignment of error need not occupy the attention of this Court.
In view of the foregoing, the appealed decision is affirmed with costs against theappellant.
Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Conception,Endencia, and Felix, JJ.concur.
Date created: October 13, 2014
Leave a Reply