MANUEL CUDIAMAT, JOSE SUGAY AND MARKETING & SERVICES, INC., PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE GUILLERMO E. TORRES, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH VII, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, ITT, (…

Petition for certiorari and prohibition, with preliminary
injunction against a preliminary injunction issued by the Court of First Instance
of Rizal, which restrained the herein petitioners
from carrying out or implementing an award on a public bidding for the supply
of a police call and signal box system for the City of Manila.

The committee on awards for the City of Manila, composed of the
petitioners Manuel Cudiamat, City Treasurer, Jose Sugay, Head Executive Assistant of the City Mayor, and Jose
Erestain, City Auditor, (the last-named did not join
in the present petition) published on 8 May 1964, an invitation to bid for the
supply of the aforesaid police call and supply box system for the Manila Police
Department Station No. 6.  Four
companies, among then the herein petitioner Marketing & Services, Inc. and
the herein private respondent International Telephone & Telegraph (Philippines)
Inc., hereinafter referred to as ITT, (Phil.), answered the call for bids and
tendered their corresponding offers or proposals.

After evaluating the different bids, the committee on awards
decided for the petitioner Marketing & Services, Inc.  The said awardee
thereupon entered into contract with the City of Manila
on 3 September 1964, and
then opened an irrevocable letter of credit in favor of its foreign supplier on
22 September 1964.

On 25 September 1964, respondent ITT, (Phil.) filed a petition
with the Court of First Instance of Rizal, docketed
as Civil Case No. 8394, against the aforesaid members of the committee on
awards, in their official as well as in their personal capacities and against
Marketing & Services, Inc., ITT, (Phil.) praying for a preliminary
injunction against the implementation of the award, and, after hearing, for its
annulment, for damages, and that it be adjudged as the winning bidder and the
one entitled to the award.  The grounds
for the petition are allegedly the disqualification of Marketing &
Services, Inc. as an irresponsible bidder within the meaning and intent of the
conditions imposed in the invitation to bid; that the cited city officials of
Manila had violated the statutory prohibition to public officials from entering
into a transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government^[1],
and that the bid of ITT, (Phil.) was upon its face not only the lowest in point
of cost, but also the most advantageous to the City of Manila.

The Court of First Instance of Rizal,
after considering the verified petition of ITT, (Phil.) and the opposition
thereto filed by the respondents therein, ordered the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction on 29 October
1964.

Therein respondents (herein petitioners) moved for reconsideration,
but their motion was denied on 12
January 1965; hence, they filed the present petition with the
Supreme Court.

By resolution of this Court on 1 March 1965, a writ of preliminary injunction was issued,
enjoining, until further orders from this Court, the implementation of the
order of 29 October 1964
of the Court of First Instance of Rizal in its Civil
Case No. 8394, and from further proceedings in the said case.

A resolution of the first of the four issues raised in the will
suffice to dispose of the instant controversy. 
This issue is:  May a court of
first instance issue a writ of preliminary injunction which will be enforced
outside the territorial boundaries of its province and district?

The power of a court to issue an injunction, which is a matter of
jurisdiction, is one of legislative enactment (Manila Railroad Co. vs. Atty.
Gen., 20 Phil. 523) but the manner of its exercise is prescribed by the Rules
of Court.  Thus, the Judiciary Act, as
amended, provides:

“Sec. 44.  Original
Jurisdiction.  – Courts of First Instance
shall have original jurisdiction:

x        x          x          x          x          x          x

“(h)  Said courts and their judges, or any of them,
shall have power to issue writs of injunction, mandamus, certiorari,
prohibition, quo warranto and habeas corpus in
their respective provinces and districts, in the
manner provided an the Rules of Court.” (Emphasis supplied)

The above provision should not be confused with Section 2, Rule
58 of the Revised Rules of Court (Sec. 2, Rule 60 of the old Rules) which reads
as follows:

“SEC. 2.  Who may
grant preliminary injunction.  – A
preliminary may be granted by the judge of any court in which the action is
pending, or by a Justice of the Court of Appeals or of the Supreme Court.  It may also be granted by the judge of a
Court of First Instance in any action pending in an inferior court within his
district.”

The preliminary injunction that may be
granted by a court of first instance under said Section 2 is, in its
application, co-extensive with the territorial boundaries of the province or
district in which the said court sits. 
(Acosta vs. Alvendia, et al., L-14598, 31 Oct.
1960; Alhambra Cigar & Cigarette Manufacturing Co., Inc. vs. National
Administrator of Regional Office No. 2, etc., et al., L-20491, 31 Aug. 1965; Peo. et al. vs. Mencias, L-19633,
28 Nov. 1966)

Since the injunction issued by the Court of First Instance of Rizal purports to restrain acts outside the province
of Rizal,
it is null and void, for want of jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE, the writ of preliminary injunction issued by
this Court on 1 March 1965
is hereby made permanent, with costs against respondent International Telephone
& Telegraph (Philippines),
Inc.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon,
Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

^[1]
ITT, (Phil.) specified the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act, Rep. Act
3019, in its Memorandum, p. 10.