NG SIU TAM ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. RAFAEL AMPARO ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

When on March 7, 1948, the sheriff of Manila took steps to execute the
decision of the court of First Instance in civil case number 3527 ordering
Felipe Aguasin and his wife to leave the premises in Echague Street belonging to
Jose M. Ocampo, and to cause all “tenants thereon” to vacate the same, the
herein petitioners Ng Siu Tam et al., — all sublessees of Aguasin occupying the
premises, — appeared before the court, argued that, not beina parties to the
aforesaid civil case they were not bound by that decision and moved for a
declaration to that effect. The court denied their motion in an order dated
March 13, 1948, which, gave them thirty days to remove their goods or
merchandise or to take further steps for the protection of their rights. A
motion to reconsider was likewise denied. Hence thia petition for certiorari
with preliminary injunction.

It is undisputed that Jose M. Ocampo, the owner of the premises, has obtained
a judgment of eviction — which has become final— against his tenants, the
Aguasins. The latter had subleased the same to herein petitioners, owning and
operating stores therein. And the sole question is whether the eviction order
affects them too. We have heretofore decided such question in the affirmative (
De la Cruz vs. Roxas 42 Off. Gaz. 458; Gozon vs. De la Rosa,
L-506 January 30, 1947 44 Off. Gaz., 1225). And very recently we overruled a
petition for injunction in a quite identical situation ( King Sins vs.
Geronimo et al., L-2126 ). There is one particular circumstance, which
apparently induced one member of this court to issue a temporary injunction: the
allegation that petitioners had concluded an agreement with Ocampo to let them
retain the premises under the same conditions given to the Aguasins and that
said petitioners had instituted, in the Court of First Instance of Manila, an
action to compel Ocampo to abide by his covenant aforementioned. But apparently
no written contract exists; and respondents, denying the agreement, submitted a
sworn statement of three of the petitioners expressly admitting, that no such
contract had ever been made by respondent Jose M. Ocampo. It is, therefore our
opinion that, as in the King Sing case, herein petitioners may not in this
proceeding enjoin the execution of Jose M. Ocampo’s Judgment.

On the equitable side we observe that petitioners knew the pendency of the
ejectment preceedings ( Annex C ) and were actually heard in their two motions —
wherein, strangely enough, they never mentioned their alleged understanding with
the owner. They have furthermore been accorded fair treatment in the form of
extension of time to pack up their possessions, and carry them away.

The petition is dismissed and the preliminary injunction will immediately be
dissolved. Costs in favor of respondents.

Parás, Actg. C. J., Feria,
Pablo, Perfecto, and Tuason, JJ., concur.