CHAMBER OF FILIPINO RETAILERS, INC., NA­TIONAL MARKET VENDORS ASSOCIATION, INC., AM­BROSIO ILAO, CRISPIN DE GUZMAN, JOSE J. LAPID, AND FELICISIMO LAS, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. ANTO…

Before Us is a motion for the reconsideration of our resolution
of December 3, 1968 dismissing the present action for prohibition “for
lack of merit; appeal in due time is the remedy”.

It appears that on August 14, 1968 petitioners filed Civil Case
No. 73902 against Antonio J. Villegas et al. in the Court of First Instance of
Manila to question the validity of Ordinance No. 6696 – later superseded by
Ordinance No. 6767 – increasing the rental fees of stalls in public markets in
said city.  A restraining order was
issued by said court but the same was lifted on November 3, 1968 when, after
hearing the parties, the court rendered judgment dis­missing the case and
declaring the questioned ordinance valid. 
On November 16, 1968 the therein petitioners perfected their appeal to this Court (G. R. No. L-29819).

Petitioners now allege that upon the lifting of the restraining
order mentioned heretofore, the respondents in the case – who are the same
respondents in the present – immediately sought to enforce the provisions of
Ordinance No. 6767 by making demands for the payment of the back dif­ferentials
in market rates together with the rentals at the new rates, with the threat
that petitioners would be ejected summarily from their respective stalls if
they refused or failed to pay the rentals and back charges demanded.  After receiving such demand petitioners filed
the present action for prohibition to restrain collection of rentals and pos­sible
ejectment.

Upon the above facts We reiterate our resolution dis­missing the present action for
prohibition and, as a con­sequence, We deny the motion for reconsideration
mentioned heretofore, for the reason that the relief sought by herein
petitioners could be properly secured from the lower court in accordance with
the provisions of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, or from this Court in the
appealed case – G. R. L-29864.  As a matter
of fact, petitioners’ motion for re­consideration expressly states that on
November 21, 1968 they filed in the latter case a motion to reinstate the
restraining order herein before mentioned or to issue a writ of preliminary
injunction pending appeal, which motion, however, was denied by this Court on
the 26th of the same month and year.  It
would appear, therefore, that the present action was filed as an attempt to
secure from this court the same relief that we had already denied to the same
parties in G. R. No. L-29819.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the motion for reconsideration filed by
petitioners on December 1968 is hereby denied.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Castro, Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee, and
Barredo, JJ., concur.